Nature and Nation: Forests and Development in Peninsular Malaysia 997169302X, 8791114225, 8791114497

Table of contents :
book title
Contents
Preface and Acknowledgements
Glossary
Abbreviations
Note on Spelling, Terminology, Measurements and Currencies
Preamble: Forests and Development
Introduction: Nature, Culture and State
1. Tropical Nature and the Imperial Design, 1786–1874
2. Forests in the Pioneer Era, 1874– c.1900: Boon or Bane?
3. Appropriating the Forest, 1901–41
4. Segmented Space and Livelihoods
5. Reconciling Conflicting Claims
6. Nature, Ecology and Conservation
7. Linking Nature and Nation
8. The Seminal Years of Forest Politics, 1942–56
9. Development at a Price: 1957–69
10. Development and Environmentalism
11. Integrating Biodiversity with Development: Myth or Reality?
12. The Politics of Resource
13. Domestic Response to the New International Order: Rio and After
Conclusion: Nature for Nation
Appendices
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

Forests and Development in Peninsular Malaysia

Jeyamalar Kathirithamby-Wells

NATURE AND NATION Forests and Development in Peninsular Malaysia

Nature and Nation

This ground-breaking, in-depth history of forestry and forest politics in Peninsular Malaysia will be an essential reference for anyone working on the subject. Malaysia has long been singled out for emulation by developing nations, an accolade contradicted in recent years by concerns over its capital- rather than poverty-driven forest depletion. The Malaysian case supports the call for re-appraisal of entrenched prescriptions for development that go beyond material needs. Nature and Nation explores the relations between people and forests in Peninsular Malaysia where the planet’s richest terrestrial ecosystem has collided with the fastest pace of economic transformation experienced in the tropical world. It engages the interplay of history, culture, science, economics and politics to provide an holistic interpretation of the continuing relevance of forests to state and society in the moist tropics. “The author’s work makes a major contribution to the forest history of Peninsular Malaysia … [I]t will long be regarded as a ground-breaking and seminal study that no one with an interest in the environmental history of the region can afford not to read. Nothing remotely like it exists for the Peninsula and I know of no other comparable work on any other part of the Tropics. It is sui generis.” Robert Aiken, Concordia University

Jeyamalar Kathirithamby-Wells

Nature and Nation

www.nus.edu.sg/npu ISBN 9971-69-302-X

www.niaspress.dk

KWells_nias-sup_pbk.indd 1

,-789971-693022-

Jeyamalar Kathirithamby-Wells

2/8/05 13:50:01

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page i Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

NA TURE AND NATION

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page ii Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

NORDIC INSTITUTE OF ASIAN STUDIES Man & Nature in Asia Series Editor: Arne Kalland Professor of Social Anthropology, University of Oslo




The implication that environmental degradation in Asia has occurred only as a product of Westernization ignores Asia’s long history of environmental degradation and disaster. The principle aim of this series, then, is to encourage critical research into the human–nature relationship in Asia. The series’ multidisciplinary approach invites studies in a number of topics: how people make a living from nature; their knowledge and perception of their natural environment and how this is reflected in their praxis; indigenous systems of resource management; environmental problems, movements and campaigns; and many more. The series will be of particular interest to anthropologists, geographers, historians, political scientists and sociologists as well as to policy makers and those interested in development and environmental issues in Asia. RE CEN T T I T L E S Japanese Images of Nature. Cultural Perspectives Pamela J. Asquith and Arne Kalland (eds) Environmental Challenges in South-East Asia Victor T. King (ed.) State, Society and the Environment in South Asia Stig Toft Madsen (ed.) Environmental Movements in Asia Arne Kalland and Gerard Persoon (eds) Wildlife in Asia John Knight (ed.) The Social Dynamics of Deforestation in the Philippines Gerhard van den Top Co-management of Natural Resources in Asia Gerard Persoon, Diny van Est and Percy Sajise (eds) Fengshui in China Ole Bruun Nature and Nation. Forests and Development in Peninsular Malaysia Jeyamalar Kathirithamby-Wells

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page iii Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

NATURE AND NATION F orests and D evelopment in P eninsular M alaysia

Jeyamalar Kathirithamby-Wells

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page iv Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

First published in 2005 by NIAS Press Nordic Institute of Asian Studies Leifsgade 33, DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark tel: (+45) 3532 9501 • fax: (+45) 3532 9549 e–mail: [email protected] • website: www.niaspress.dk Man & Nature in Asia series, no. 9 Simultaneously published in North America by the University of Hawai‘i Press and in the ASEAN countries, Japan, Korea, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Australia and New Zealand by Singapore University Press

© Jeyamalar Kathirithamby-Wells 2005

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Kathirithamby-Wells, J. Nature and nation : Forests and development in peninsular Malaysia. - (Man & nature in Asia ; 9) 1.Forests and forestry - Malaysia - History 2.Forest management - Malaysia 3.Forest policy - Malaysia 4.Malaysia - Economic policy 5.Malaysia - Politics and government I.Title II.Hall, Clare III.Nordic Institute of Asian Studies 333.7’5’095951 ISBN 87-91114-22-5 (NIAS hardback) ISBN 87-91114-49-7 (NIAS paperback)

Typesetting by NIAS Press Produced by Bookchase and printed in the European Union

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page v Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

For David, Chris and Adrian

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page vi Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page vii Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Contents Preface and Acknowledgements … xii Glossary … xv Abbreviations … xxi Note on Spelling, Terminology, Measurements and Currencies … xxvii Preamble: Forests and Development … xxix Development and Environmental Change • Attitudes to Nature and Forest Use • State, Forestry and Civil Society • Structure and Content Introduction: Nature, Culture and State … 1 The Rain Forest Environment • Co-opting Nature • Nature and Culture • Forests and Livelihoods • New Market Forces • Culture and Knowledge

Part I: Colonial Adventure and Tropical Resource, 1786–1900 1. Tropical Nature and the Imperial Design, 1786–1874 … 27 Pioneer Botanical Exploration • Paradise Regained • Taming the Wilderness • The Turning Tide • The Beginnings of Colonial Conservation • New Opportunities, New Values • Towards Forestry 2. Forests in the Pioneer Era, 1874– c.1900: Boon or Bane? … 58 The Commodification of Forests • Pioneer Conservation • El Niño and Shifting Cultivation • Taming the Landscape • Forest Administration and the GuttaPercha Crisis • Towards Professional Forestry

Part II: Forestry and State Formation, 1901–41 3. Appropriating the Forest, 1901–41 … 87 Tools of Appropriation • The Malayan Forester • Control over Economic Species • Towards Sustainability • Co-opting the Chinese Timber Industry • The Enigma of Planned Production • The Implications of Decentralization 4. Segmented Space and Livelihoods … 125 Forest Law and the Rural Invasion • Forestry and the Forest People • Failing Strategies of Survival • Extending the Colonial Domain 5. Reconciling Conflicting Claims … 149 The Implications of Plantation Agriculture • Mining and the Scramble for the Lowlands • Invading the Hills

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page viii Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Nature and Nation

•

viii

Part III: The Emergence of a Conservation Ethic, Pre-World War II 6. Nature, Ecology and Conservation … 165 Nature and Imperial Science • Ecology and Conservation • Ecology and Economy • Defining New Ecological and Social Perimeters 7. Linking Nature and Nation … 189 Hunting • Man or Beast? • Wildlife Protection and the National Park • Nature and Nation

Part IV: Forest Use and Abuse, 1942–69 8. The Seminal Years of Forest Politics, 1942–56 … 229 Forests for the War • The Japanese Industrial Thrust • Forest Refuge • Forests and Radicalism • Issues of Land Use • Social Engineering • Technical Revolution • Malay Aspirations 9. Development at a Price: 1957–69 … 265 An Aborted Policy • Crisis of the Rural Landless • Boom or Bust? • Science, Development and Forestry • Education and the Public Conscience • Towards Multi-Purpose Parks and Reserves • Reinventing Eden

Part V: Reconciling Nature and Nation, 1970–1980s 10. Development and Environmentalism … 307 The New Environmental Age • The Seminal Year, 1972 • Environmental Policy: Real or Notional? • Going Only Half Way • NGOs and Public Protest 11. Integrating Biodiversity with Development: Myth or Reality? … 337 Multi-Purpose Parks and Reserves • Biodiversity in Tension with Development • Malaysia and the Tropical Forest Action Plan • In the Grip of Green Gold • Managing Multi-Purpose Forests • State Intransigence

Part VI: National Resource, Global Heritage, 1984–2000 12. The Politics of Resource … 365 Malaysia and the Global Environmental Agenda • The North–South Divide • Federal–State Tensions • Trade Liberalization and Sustainable Production 13. Domestic Response to the New International Order: Rio and After … 392 Policy and Practice • The Conundrum of Sustainable Management • An Integrated Management Initiative • Over the Top • Law, Ethics and Accountability Conclusion: Nature for Nation … 415 Forestry and Development • Government and Environmentalism • New Uses, New Values • Poorer but Wiser?

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page ix Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Contents

•

ix

Appendices 1. Forest Area, Peninsular Malaysia, 1946–2000 … 429 2. Forest Area, Timber and Revenue Extracted, 1946–2000 … 430 3. Population Compared to Forest Area, 1891–2006 … 431 4. Forest and Forest-Related Domestic Policies, Legislation and International Agreements … 432 5. Annual Average Southern [ENSO] Oscillation Index, 1880–1990 … 433 Bibliography … 435 Index … 475 MAPS

1. 2. 3. 4.

Peninsular Malaysia … xxxvii British rule in the Malay Peninsula … 124 Distribution of Orang Asli … 132 Forest cover, 2000 … 364 ILLUSTRATIONS

1. Plants in traditional use … 4 i. Pandanus halicorpus (pandan) • ii. Nypa fruticans (nipah) • iii. Eleiodoxa conferta (kelubi/asam paya) 2. Trees traditionally protected … 5 i. Koompassia excelsa (tualang) • ii. Antiaris toxicaria (ipuh) • iii. Dryobalanops aromatica (kapur) 3. Purveyors of indigenous botanical knowledge … 16 i. Medicine man (bomoh), Straits Settlements, c. 1891 • ii. Plant collector: Mohamed Haniff (1872–1930) 4. ‘Glugor House’ and spice plantations, Penang, c. 1820 … 35. 5. Dwellings fashioned out of forest products … 56–57 i. Orang Asli dwelling in deep jungle, West Peninsula, c. 1950 • ii. Malay nobleman’s house, Kuala Kangsar, Perak, 1878 • iii. ‘Smoke House Inn’: Bungalow at Kukup, Johor, c. 1900 6. Rhizophora (bakau) … 59 7. Tapping Dyera costulata (jelutong) … 99 8. Rattan drying … 100 9. Forest life … 134 i. Orang Asli family, Perak, c.1950 • ii. Orang Asli with blowpipe, c.1950 • iii. Parkia spp.(petai) among varieties of wild fruit

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page x Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Nature and Nation

•

x

10. Life on the Sungai Tahan, c.1950 … 136 11. Orang Asli settlement near Boh Tea Estate, Cameron Highlands, c. 1970 … 138 12. Tin-mining landscape … 152 13. Hill development … 158 i. Fraser’s Hill development, c.1930 • ii. Tea plantation, Cameron Highlands, c.1950 14. Threatened animals … 191 i. Gaur: Bos gaurus (seladang) • ii. Barking deer: Muntiacus muntjak (kijang) • iii. Tapir: Tapirus indicus (badak cipan), Taman Negara 15. Snipe shoot, Jin Heng Estate, Kuala Kurau, Perak, c. 1930 … 195 16. Theodore Hubback … 199 17. Gunung Tahan from 1,500 m. … 217 18. The twentieth-century revolution in logging … 250 i. Elephant haulage, Hulu Jeli, Kelantan • ii. Manual haulage in swamp forest iii. ‘San-tai-wong’ • iv. Tractor haulage 19. Lesser mouse deer: Tragulus javanicus (pelanduk, kancil) … 282 20. Logging and land development … 323 i. i. Forest, cleared and burned for oil palm, north of Kuala Terengganu • ii. Timber lorries, Labis, Johor 21. Medicinal herbs … 341 i. Cibotium barometz (penawar jambi; bulu pusi) • ii. Eurycoma longifolia (tongkat ali) 22. Surviving Batek life … 400 i. Foraging • ii. Fishing • iii. ‘Burial’ among the trees

Natural history drawings Prelims: Cibotium barometz by Barbara Everard Sectional starts: William Farquhar Collection of Natural History Drawings, courtesy of Singapore History Museum, National Heritage Board i areca-nut palm (Areca catechu) … 25 • ii black-naped oriole (Oriolus chinensis) … 85 • iii rambutan tree (Nephelium lappaceum) … 163 • iv agile gibbon (Hylobates agilis) with mangosteen (Garcinia mangostana) … 227 • v woodoil tree (Dipterocarpus sp.) … 307 • vi monitor lizard (Varanus sp.) … 365 Chapter starts: by Mariam Jutta Hoya lacunosa… xxix • Piper nigrum … 1 • Calophyllum inophyllum … 27 • Arisaema roxburghii … 58 • Rhizophora apiculata … 87 • Agathis borneensis

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page xi Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Contents

•

xi

… 125 • Medinilla crassifolia … 149 • Pachycentria constricta … 165 • Arenga obtusifolia … 189 • Zingiber sp. … 229 • Maingaya malayana … 265 • Etlingera venusta …307 • Ophioglossum pendulum … 337 • Nephelium maingayi … 365 • Tacca integrifolia … 392 • Mesua ferrea … 415

Cover illustrations Front: Wood-oil tree (Dipterocarpus sp.) by an early-19th-century Chinese artist, from the William Farquhar Collection of Natural History Drawings, courtesy of Royal Asiatic Society Back: People and the National Park, courtesy of Ken Rubeli TABLES

1. Reserved Forest relative to State and Alienated Land, FMS 1913–38 … 90 2. Revenues from forest produce, the Malay States, 1911, 1927, 1929 and 1932 … 101 3. Rate of reservation in the FMS, 1922–38 … 111 4. Erosion levels in catchments of the Bertam, Kial and Telum Rivers, Cameron Highlands … 244 5. Projected log production and domestic consumption in Peninsular Malaysia, 1976–2010 … 314 FIGURES

1. Comparison of wood extracted from State and Reserved Forests in the FMS, 1904–37 … 109 2. Amount of timber and fuel consumed, FMS, 1909–35 … 110 3. Number of cases of illegal logging and fines collected, Peninsular Malaysia, 1990–92 … 374

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page xii Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Preface and Acknowledgements he most immediate obstacle to the growth of a pan-Malayan way of thinking on the part of the inhabitants was, perhaps, geographical limitation,’ suggested B. Simandjuntak writing on Malayan federalism in 1969. ‘Mountain ranges clad with dense tropical jungle, and swampy plains, tended to inhibit popular movements’.1 Development, accelerated in the last half century, has almost entirely eliminated this supposed physical barrier that stood in the way of social integration. Yet the political and cultural plurality that dominated the Malayan mentality before Independence lives on intact. Perceptions of tropical forests, in the meantime, have changed profoundly. The emergence of environmental discourse during the last quarter of the twentieth century has generated a new social ethos. Indeed, far from standing in the way of integration, nature as common heritage offers a unique focus for national interaction, transcending ethnic divisions. The elusive pan-Malaysian identity as this study suggests, might be sought not in commonplace notions of material development but precisely in society’s changing but abiding interactions with the natural environment. The evidence rests on two critical themes, first, the enduring importance of the forest to Malaysian development and, second, the articulation of this reality through the rise and co-evolution of tropical ecology and the global conservation movement. The composite nature of a ‘total’ history of human-forest relations in the moist tropics has proved both daunting and challenging to represent. The wide chronological and thematic spectrum that the project spans has involved the study not only of historical sources but extensive literature on biology, ecology, forestry and conservation. Much of this, in the form of original manuscripts and rare scientific reports, remains scattered among institutional and departmental libraries in Malaysia. A treasure trove at risk of further dispersal and loss, it adds hugely to Malaysian historiography. The exploration of human– environmental relations through these sources, apart from contextualizing Malaysia within the development of global science and environmentalism, lends insights into social processes significant to nation building, conventionally overlooked. The nature of the project attracted the interest of foresters and forest ecologists, who readily offered their knowledge and experience. Throughout the research phase, I was particularly fortunate to have had the help and advice of

‘T

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page xiii Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Preface and Acknowledgements

•

xiii

John Wyatt-Smith and Tim Whitmore, who contributed extensively to the development of forest ecology and conservation in Peninsular Malaysia. Both read and criticized drafts of the manuscript but, sadly, neither lived to see the book completed. Peter Burgess has been equally generous in sharing his great store of forestry knowledge and recollection of important times in the Peninsula. He, too, gave of his time generously, read draft chapters with patience and commented meticulously. This notwithstanding, differences in interpretation of particular issues and policies are strictly my own responsibility. Precarious as it was for a non-specialist to tread the path of forest science, exploring the ground where the interests of the natural and the human sciences converge was a necessary risk for better understanding human-forest relations. At various times the project had the generous support of the British Council (Kuala Lumpur), the British Academy and the Chevening Scholarships Programme under the British High Commissioner’s Research Award scheme (Kuala Lumpur). The Geography Department and the South Asian Studies Centre, Cambridge University, generously extended their facilities to me. Ideas took shape at the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences (NIAS), Wassenaar, where a Fellowship provided material support and as warm and congenial an environment as any researcher might wish. In the course of my research I have accumulated debts of gratitude to various institutions and individuals for help with research materials: at Cambridge University, Terry Barringer and Rachel Rowe (Smuts Librarian), successively in charge of the University Library Royal Commonwealth Society Collection; Lionel Carter and Kevin Greenbank, South Asian Studies Centre Library; Jane Robinson, Geography Department Library; and Richard Savage, Plant Science Library. Mary Cordiner at the IUCN Library, Cambridge answered varies queries. At the archives of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Kate Pickard and Mandy Ingram lightened the task of locating relevant material. At Oxford, I am indebted to staff of the Plant Science Library and especially Roger Mills who stepped out of his way to respond to urgent inquiries. In Malaysia I am indebted to the staff of the Arkib Negara; the University of Malaya Library, especially R. Selvarajah of the Law Faculty; the Forest Department Headquarters, Kuala Lumpur; and the Forest Research Institute (FRIM), Kepong. Noor Liza Ahmad Zahari of WWF Malaysia, well versed in Malaysian conservation literature, was enormously helpful. In the Netherlands, Dinny Young at NIAS, Wassenaar; and in Washington D.C., the staff of the World Bank Secretariat Library brought relevant material to my attention. A conference hosted by the Nordic Institute of Asian Studies, Copenhagen, on Asian perceptions of nature encouraged me to broaden the scope of my study. Aspects of my research benefited from presentations at seminars and conferences, in Leiden, Wassenaar, Bangkok, Cambridge, Kuala Lumpur, New Haven and London. The many contacts that resulted provided insight and facilitated my research in various ways. I thank especially: Chris Bayly, Richard

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page xiv Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Nature and Nation

•

xiv

Grove and Keith Richards at Cambridge; Henk Wesseling (former Director), Woulter Hogenholtz and Willem van der Wal at NIAS, Wassenaar; Leonard Blussé of Leiden University; Junko Tomuru of Kobe University and Yoshikazu Sato of Tokyo University who provided Japanese translations; Jim Scott of Yale University; Vinita Dhamodaran of Sussex University; Jeff Burley at the former Oxford Forestry Institute; and Syed Farid Alatas of the National University, Singapore. John Gullick, Nigel Philips, John Bastin and Ivan Enoch in the UK brought salient literature to my attention and readily shared their special interests. In Kuala Lumpur, I had the valuable cooperation of S. Appanah, Francis Ng, Cheong Phang Fee, N. Manokaran, Lim Hin Fui and Chamon Suresh Gopal of FRIM, Kepong ; Shaharuddin Mohamad Ismail, Nazir Khan Nazim Khan, Tuan Marina Tuan Ibrahim, Alias Mohd Saad of the Forestry Department; Nadzri Yahaya of the Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment (MOSTE); Ramdasan Krishnan and Joan Thang of WWF Malaysia; Faezaah Ismail and Shamsul Akmar of the New Straits Times newspaper and Tong Pei Sin and Sonny Wong of the Malayan Nature Society. The Library of Cambridge University permitted the use of illustrations from the Royal Commonwealth Society Collection. The Royal Asiatic Society and the Singapore History Museum, National Heritage Board, provided images from the William Farquhar Collection of Natural History Drawings. Wendy Whitmore generously allowed me access to Tim Whitmore’s extensive photographic collection. For other illustrations I thank Wetland International Asia Pacific, Kuala Lumpur; the Library of the Botanic Gardens, Aberdeen; and Gordon Smith, Ken Rubeli, the Earl of Cranbrook and Henry Barlow. Scott Maloney and Ian Agnew of Cambridge University assisted with graphics. I am especially grateful to Mariam Jutta for her diligence and cooperation in producing the botanical drawings at short notice. At NIAS Press, Gerald Jackson, Editor in Chief, devoted much time to the publication of this monograph, including the preparation of maps, graphs and tables, all with patience and good humour. Among the many friends who offered their support and hospitality during research trips, I owe a special debt to Arthur and Romila Samuel, Linda and Phan Kok Chai, Wendy Whitmore and Peter and Mary Ashton. The enthusiasm of my husband, David Wells, for the project and his critical comments and insights added much to my endeavour. For errors of fact or interpretation I alone remain responsible. Jeyamalar Kathirithamby-Wells Clare Hall, Cambridge

NOTE 1

B. Simandjuntak, Malayan Federalism: A Study of Federal Problems in a Plural Society, Oxford University Press: Kuala Lumpur, 1969, p. 2.

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page xv Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Glossary MALAY TER MS

alam world, universe alam semula jadi literally ‘the world in its original state’ or nature asli original, aboriginal, genuine bakau mangrove balai meeting place, audience hall belukar secondary forest, scrub bendahara prime minister; finance minister bendang see sawah bomoh/ dukun medicine-man, magician buah fruit bumiputera literally ‘son of the soil’, a term officially used for Malays and all indigenous people damar resin dato, datuk title traditionally borne by non-royal chief; title conferred in modern times in recognition of services to the nation dukun see bomoh dusun orchard gembala mahout getah latex, rubber gunung mountain hantu evil spirit, ghost harimau akuan/jadi-jadian were-tiger (cf. werewolf) hilir downriver hulu/ulu upriver hutan forest hutan rimba primary forest, primeval forest jadi-jadian see harimau akuan

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page xvi Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Nature and Nation

jenang jerat kampung kayu kerabat di-raja keramat kongsi ladang lalang maju mandur menebang minyak mukim negeri orang kaya palung panglung pantang pantun pawang penghulu pengkalan pikul pokok raja muda relau rimba Rukunegara sakai sawah semangat sungai tauke, taukeh

•

xvi

assistant or representative of a chief or ruler noose, snare village wood, timber royalty objects and people worshipped for their perceived magical powers a partnership or Chinese business group swidden the grass Imperata cylindrica progress overseer to cut down oil district state literally ‘rich man’; title borne by nobility and chiefs Wooden structure with sluice boxes for collecting tin ore Chinese log-extraction system taboo improvised quatrain with inner assonance shaman, magician village head river jetty weight equivalent to 60 kg tree, plant heir to the throne furnace for smelting tin primary forest, jungle articles of faith of the nation term originally used for aborigines in general, now considered pejorative and replaced by the term Orang Asli. paddy field: wet-rice cultivation vital force, energy, spirit of life river towkay, Chinese businessman, shopkeeper

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page xvii Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Glossary

•

xvii

temenggung

minister traditionally in charge of defence, internal security and affairs of the palace tengku/tungku title for Malay princes tengku mahkota crown prince tongkang barge, vessel for transporting cargo between ship and shore tungku see tengku ubi edible root or underground stem ulu see hulu Yang Dipertuan Agung title borne by the constitutional head of state in Malaya/ Malaysia

MALAY NAMES FOR FLORA AND PLANT PRODUCTS

akar laka (Dalbergia parviflora) asam gelugur (from Garcinia atroviridis) bakau (Rhizophora spp.) bakau kurap, belukap (Rhizophora mucronata) bakau minyak (Rhizophora apiculata) balau (Shorea spp.) berembang (Sonneratia caseolaris) bertam (Eugeissona tristis) bintangur batu, penaga laut red poon (Calophyllum inophyllum and C. lanigerum) bulu pusi, penawar jambi (Cibotium barometz) cengal, penak (Neobalanocarpus heimii) damar laut merah (Shorea kunstleri) damar minyak (Agathis borneensis) durian (Durio spp.) gaharu/ karas eaglewood (from Aquilaria malaccensis) gambir gambier (from Uncaria gambir) gelam paperbark (Melaleuca cajuputi) getah perca gutta-percha (from Palaquium gutta) getah rambung (from Ficus elastica) getah sondek (from Palaquium maingayi) getah taban merah (from Palaquium gutta)

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page xviii Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Nature and Nation

•

xviii

getah taban putih (from Palaquium obovatum) giam (Hopea nutans) jelutung jelutong (from Dyera costulata) jernang rattan (from Daemonorops didymophylla) kapur camphor (from Dryobalanops aromatica) kayu arang ebony (Diospyros maingayi) kedondong (Canarium spp.) kelat (Eugenia spp.) kelubi/asam paya (Eleiodoxa conferta) kempas (Koompassia malaccensis) kemuning (Murraya paniculata) kepung (Shorea macroptera and S. ovalis) keranji (Dialium spp.) keruing (Dipterocarpus spp.) kesumba keling annatto (from Bixa orellana) kesumba safflower, false saffron (from Carthamus tinctorius) kubin, telinga gajah (Macaranga gigantea) kulim (Scorodocarpus borneensis) kumus (Shorea spp.) lalang (Imperata cylindrica) leban (Vitex spp. ) mata kucing (Hopea spp.) mengkuang screw-palm (Pandanus spp.) meranti (Shorea spp.) merbau (Intsia palembanica) neram (Dipterocarpus oblongifolius) nibung (Oncosperma tigillarium) nipah nipa (Nypa fruticans) palas (Licuala spp.) pandan see mengkuang penak see cengal penawar jambi see bulu pusi pendarahan (Myristica spp.) perah (Elateriospermum tapos) petai (Parkia spp.)

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page xix Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Glossary

piai rami rambung resak resam rotan manau rumbia sagu sepang seraya sondek taban taban merah tembusu tongkat ali tualang tuba tumu

•

xix

(Acrostichum aureum) (Boehmeria nivea) (Ficus elastica) (Vatica and Cotylelobium spp.) (Gleichenia linearis) rattan (Calamus ornatus, Calamus manan) sago palm (Metroxylon sagu) (from Metroxylon sagu) sappan (Caesalpinia sappan) (Shorea curtisii) see getah sondek (Palaquium spp.) (Palaquium gutta) (Fagraea spp.) (Eurycoma longifolia) (Koompassia excelsa) (Derris spp.) (Bruguiera gymnorhiza)

MALAY NAMES FOR FAUNA AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS

ayam hutan junglefowl (Gallus gallus) babi hutan wild pig (Sus scrofa) badak berendam Sumatran rhinoceros (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis) badak cipan Malayan tapir (Tapirus indicus) badak raya Javan rhinoceros (Rhinoceros sondaicus) banting banteng (Bos javanicus) barau-barau straw-headed bulbul (Pycnonotus zeylanicus) belibis lesser whistling duck (Dendrocygna javanica) benturung bearcat (Arctictis binturong) beruang sun bear (Helarctos malayanus) berkuk large green pigeon (Treron capellei) cecadu gua cave fruit bat (Eonycteris spelaea) embalau stick-lac (from Laccifer lacca)

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page xx Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Nature and Nation

•

xx

gajah elephant (Elephas maximus) guliga bezoar harimau tiger (Panthera tigris) kambing gurun serow (Capricornis sumatraensis) kelip-kelip firefly (Pteroptyx spp.) keluang Malayan flying fox (Pteropus vampyrus) kijang barking deer, Indian muntjac (Muntiacus muntjak) kuang argus pheasant (Argusianus argus) merak green peafowl (Pavo muticus) merbuk balam zebra dove(Geopelia striata) murai kampung magpie robin (Copsychus saularis) musang civet (Viverridae) musang pulut toddy cat (Paradoxurus hermaphroditus) pelanduk, kancil lesser mouse deer (Tragulus javanicus) pipit padi munia (Lonchura spp.) punai green pigeon (Treron spp.) punai tanah emerald dove (Chalcophaps indica) rusa sambar, sambhur (Cervus unicolor) seladang gaur (Bos gaurus) tiong air moorhen (Gallinula chloropus)

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page xxi Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Abbreviations ACA Ad. F ADO AN APPEN ASEAN ASPA BKI CAP CBD Cd. CF CFC CFDT CFJ CHOGM CIDA CIFOR CITES CO CSBD CSD CUP DANCED DF DFO DID

Anti-Corruption Agency Adviser on Forestry Assistant District Officer Arkib Nasional /National Archives, Malaysia Asia-Pacific People’s Environmental Network Association of Southeast Asian Nations Amanah Saham Pahang Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde Consumers’ Association, Penang Convention on Biodiversity Command Conservator of Forests Chlorofluorocarbon Committee on Forest Development in the Tropics Conservator of Forests, Johor Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting Canadian International Development Agency Centre for International Forest Research Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (of Wild Fauna and Flora) Colonial Office Country Study on Biological Diversity Commission on Sustainable Development Cambridge University Press Danish Cooperation for Environment and Development Director of Forestry District Forest Officer Drainage and Irrigation Department

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page xxii Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Nature and Nation

•

xxii

DO District Officer DOE Department of Environment DTAM Dutch Technical Aid Mission DWNP/JPHL Department of Wildlife and National Parks/Jabatan Perlindungan Hidupan Liar dan Taman Negara/PERHILITAN ECE European Commission for Environment EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ENSO El Niño Southern Oscillation EPSM Environmental Protection Society EPU Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department, Malaysia. ESCAP Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific Region FELCRA Federal Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation Authority FELDA Federal Land Development Authority FMS Federated Malay States FoE Friends of the Earth FRI(M) Forest Research Institute (Malaysia) FRRS Forest Resource Reconnaissance Survey FS Federal Secretariat FSC Forestry Stewardship Council Ft. Perak S. Forestry, Perak South GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade GG Government Gazette GIS Geographical Information System GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit ha hectare HC High Commissioner HCOF High Commissioner’s Office File HMSO Her/His Majesty’s Stationery Office IADP Integrated Agricultural Development Programme IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ICBP International Council for Bird Preservation/BirdLife International ICPN International Congress for the Protection of Nature ICSU International Council of Scientific Unions

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page xxiii Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Abbreviations

IFP IIED ISIS ITTA ITTO IUCN IUPN JFMSM JHEOA JIA JICA JMBRAS JSBRAS JSEAH JSEAS JSFPE KADA KESEDAR KETENGAH KITLV KPK KPKKT LCC MAB MARA MARDI MBRAS MC & I MCP MIDA MNJ

•

xxiii

Interim Forest Policy International Institute for Environment and Development, London Institute for Strategic and International Studies, Malaysia International Timber Trade Agreement, 1983 International Timber Trade Organization The International Union for Conservation (of Nature and Natural Resources) International Union for the Protection of Nature Journal of the Federated Malay States Museums Jabatan Hal Ehwal Orang Asli /Department of Orang Asli Affairs Journal of the Indian Archipelago Japanese International Cooperation Agency Journal of the Malayan/Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society Journal of Southeast Asian History Journal of Southeast Asian Studies Journal of the Society for Fauna Protection in the Empire Kemubu Agricultural Development Authority, Kedah/Perlis Kelantan Selatan Development Authority /South Kelantan Development Authority/ Lembaga Kemajuan Terengganu Tengah/Central Terengganu Development Authority Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde Kompleks Perkayuan Kelantan Kumpulan Pengurusan Kayu-Kayan Terengganu Land Classification Council Man and Biosphere (Programme) Malaysia Majlis Amanah Rakyat /Council for Rural Welfare Malayan Agricultural Research and Development Institute Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society Malaysian Criteria & Indicators Malayan Communist Party Malaysian Industry Development Authority Malayan/Malaysian Nature Journal

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page xxiv Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Nature and Nation

MNS MOSTE MPAJA MTC MTIB MUS n. n.p. n.s. NCS NDC NDP NEP NFA NFC NFP NGO NLC NPAC NSCB NST NTCC NTFP ODA OFI OUP PAS PERHILITAN PFE PHDK Phg PRF PTP

•

xxiv

Malayan/Malaysian Nature Society Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army Malaysian Timber Council Malaysian Timber Industry Board Malayan Uniform System note not published new series National Conservation Strategy National Development Council New Development Policy New Economic Policy National Forestry Act National Forestry Council National Forestry Policy non-governmental organization National Land Council National Parks Advisory Council National Steering Committee on Biodiversity New Straits Times National Timber Certification Council Non-Timber Forest Produce Overseas Development Authority Oxford Forestry Institute Oxford University Press Parti Islam seMalaysia/Pan-Malayan Islamic Party see DWNP Permanent Forest Estate; by definition Permanent Reserved Forest (PRF) Pejabat Hutan Daerah, Kedah Utara - Perlis /District Forest Office, North Kedah - Perlis Pahang Permanent Reserved Forest Penyata Tahunan Perhutanan Malaysia Barat/ Annual Report, Forestry, West Malaysia

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page xxv Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Abbreviations

RCS RFA RFFA RGA RHO RIDA RIF RRI SAM SCOPE SCS SEPU/UPEN SFO SGS SJSB SMS SPFE SS TEAM TFAP TFTAAP TMP TOL TPA TRAFFIC TVA UFMS UKM UMNO UNCED UNCTAD UNDP UNEP UNESCO UNFCCC

•

xxv

Royal Commonwealth Society Report on Forest Administration Report on Federal Forest Administration Rubber Growers’ Association Rhodes House, Oxford Rural Industrial Development Authority Regeneration Improvement Felling Rubber Research Institute Sahabat Alam Malaysia/Friends of the Earth, Malaysia Scientific Commission for Problems of the Environment State Conservation Strategy State Economic Planning Unit/Unit Perancangan Ekonomi Negara State Forest Officer Société Générale de Surveillance Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. Syarikat Jengka Sdn Bhd Selective Management System Society for the Protection of Fauna in the Empire Straits Settlements Timber Exporters Association of Malaysia (International) Tropical Forest Action Plan Tropical Forest Timber Agreement and Action Plan Third Malaysia Plan Temporary Occupation Licence Totally Protected Area Trade Records Analysis of Fauna and Flora in Commerce Tennessee Valley Authority Unfederated Malay States Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia/National University, Malaysia United Malays National Organization United Nations Conference on Environment and Development United Nations Commission on Trade and Development United Nations Development Programme United Nations Environmental Programme United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page xxvi Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Nature and Nation

UPEN VJR WCED WCFSD WCS WIAP WRFM WRI WRN WTO WWF WWFM YAKIN

•

xxvi

see SEPU Virgin Jungle Reserve World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission) World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development World Conservation Strategy Wetlands International Asia Pacific World Rain Forest Movement World Resources Institute World Rainforest Network World Trade Organization World Wildlife Fund/World Wide Fund for Nature World Wildlife Fund, Malaysia/World Wide Fund for Nature, Malaysia Yayasan Kelantan Darulnaim/Kelantan Development Foundation

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page xxvii Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Note on Spelling, Terminology, Measurements and Currencies S P E L L I N G A N D G E N E R AL TER MI N O L O G Y

Malay spelling is based on the Ejaan Baru or ‘New Spelling’, introduced in 1981 for the national language (bahasa Malaysia). Though some States within the Federation have retained the old spelling, the new spelling rule for placenames has been applied throughout, except for popular names such as Ipoh, Kepong and Penang. For flora and fauna, both the Malay and the scientific nomenclature are provided. For the plural of Malay nouns, such as ‘Orang Asli’ or ‘penghulu’, no English ‘s’ is added. NGO refers throughout the text to ‘Environmental Non-Governmental Organization’ (ENGO). Peninsular Malaysia or West Malaysia, located within the geographical area of the Malay Peninsula, is part of the Malaysian Federation formed in 1963. It previously constituted British Malaya (together with Singapore, which became an independent entity in 1965). ‘State’ with a capital ‘S’ refers to the political units within the Malayan/Malaysian federation; ‘state’ with a small ‘s’ refers to the national entity as a whole. ‘Forest Reserve’ and ‘Reserved Forest’ are synonymous and were classified, post-1984, as Permanent Reserved Forest (PRF). Honorifics have been excluded with the exception of hereditary titles, and ‘Sir’, ‘Tun’ and ‘Tan Sri’. FORES T R Y TER MI N O L O G Y

afforestation cess dbh premium

The artificial planting of forests on previously unforested areas. Timber export tax, imposed on volume-basis, collected for the development of the industry. Tree bole diameter at breast height. Tax imposed on timber extracted from production forest earmarked for silvicultural regeneration, computed on the basis of the volume extracted.

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page xxviii Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Nature and Nation

•

xxviii

reforestation

The artificial establishment of new forest on previously forested ground. regeneration The restoration of existing forest. royalty Tax imposed on logs according to species, classified as lightheavy- and medium hardwood. stumpage price The value of timber before felling. WEIG HTS AND MEASURES

converted from the imperial and local to the metric system 1 foot = 0.3 m 1 mile = 1.609 km 1 acre = 0.4 ha 1 sq. mile = 2.6 sq. km 1 pound = 0.45 kg 1 ton = 1016 kg 1 ton of wood arbitrarily fixed at 50 cu feet =1.4 cu m 1 cwt. = 50.8 kg 1 kati = 0.59 kg 1 pikul = 59 kg CUR RENCIES

Currencies quoted for the period before World War II are in Straits dollars ($), pegged in 1904 to sterling at the rate of $1 to 2s. 4d. The Straits dollar was superseded by the Malayan dollar ($) in 1939 and the Malaysian ringgit (M$) in 1967. The latter was equivalent to about US$0.30 until 1973, when Malaysia opted out of the sterling area. The rate appreciated, in 1985 reaching about US$0.41. In 1997 the rate was pegged at US$0.26.

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page xxix Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Preamble: Forests and Development National identity … would lose much of its ferocious enchantment without the mystique of a particular landscape tradition: its topography mapped, elaborated, and enriched as a homeland. – Simon Schama1

DE VE LOPMENT AND ENV I RONMENTAL CHANGE

n twentieth-century Peninsular Malaysia, one of the planet’s richest yet most vulnerable terrestrial ecosystems collided with unsustainable growth. 2 The retreat of the forest cover by over 60 per cent3 during the course of the same century manifested the profound change that development brought to society, driving a wedge between nature and culture. This study traces the transformation. It also examines the countervailing influences that have sought new ways of re-engaging with the environment. From the early centuries of the first millennium, the Peninsula’s forests furnished markets from China to Arabia with aromatic gums and resins collected by a small and dispersed population of forest dwellers and exported by merchants and rulers at the riverine commercial nodes. 4 Forest-fed rivers that served as arteries of commercial exchange underpinned the political economy of the pre-colonial Malay state. The nature of the forested terrain constrained territorial control and shaped the nature of political authority, upheld by socioeconomic influence rather than military power. Nineteenth-century British colonial enterprise was a major catalyst for change in the relations between forests and people. It fractured the forest-dominated riverine infrastructure that influenced the relations between humans and nature.5 Forest laws and reserves established immutable boundaries, denying access to products vital for everyday needs. Fruits, herbs and essential plants, no longer sought in the wild, were planted within the newly refashioned kampung (village) landscape.6 The relocation of hamlets from riverbanks to sites along new dirt tracks, roads and railways, and the corrugated iron roofs that replaced thatch, symbolized the gradual alienation of the rural economy from the forest. The process was completed after Independence by the inroads of mechanized

I

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page xxx Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Nature and Nation

•

xxx

farming and mega-plantation agriculture under the New Economic Policy (NEP) introduced in 1971. As reliance on forest for wood fuel and other necessities diminished, only marketable timber and land stripped bare for plantation agriculture gained value. The complex relations between nature, culture and material growth, emphasize the importance of incorporating the social values of ethics, public accountability and collective responsibility into scientific and technological initiatives.7 In his 1959 Rede lecture, revisited in 1963, C.P. Snow powerfully argued that only the cross-fertilization of the physical with the human sciences, the two main streams of knowledge, can help bring progress to the developing world.8 Escalating environmental degradation at the heart of development in the tropics deserves such an approach.9 Studies of Malaysian development suggest shortfalls in environmental safeguards relating to forests. Aiken and Leigh traced the links between twentiethcentury development and environmental degradation;10 Vincent and Rozali Mohamed Ali reviewed the emphasis on land development at the expense of the value of forests;11 Fadzilah Majid Cooke questioned the viability of sustainable forest management12; and Kathirithamby-Wells highlighted the toll taken on the forests by plantation agriculture.13 Modern Malaysian history has been studied largely in terms of politics, trade and economic growth, independent of the environmental context within which these processes evolved. Rectifying the imbalance demands a shift of focus to the centrality of forests to Malaysian development and the evolution of nationhood. AT TITUDES TO NATURE AND FOREST USE

The traditional exploitation of forest resources as market commodities by the Peninsula’s indigenous communities reinforces scepticism over Oriental perceptions of nature as environmentally sensitive.14 Nature was revered as protector; but its very abundance in terms of the modest demands of subsistence and the pre-capitalist market precluded notions of sustainability.15 This is attested by the effects of early capitalist growth in the nineteenth-century on indigenous gutta-percha extraction, for example (see pp. 46–47, 69–70). The spiritual personification of nature and its propitiation through indigenous ritual and ceremony related predominantly to its role as provider and facilitator. 16 Comparable utilitarian perceptions of nature in the West, enhanced by Judeo-Christian philosophy, emphasized the subordination of nature to human ends.17 Thus, the famous Carl Linné (Linnaeus), who linked nature and nation, helped establish the Swedish Academy of Sciences in 1739, ‘to cultivate and improve all gifts Nature has given us in abundance’ for national welfare. 18 It implied a dual commitment to exploit as well as to steward God’s creation, 19 a concept incorporated within nineteenth-century imperial philosophy. Natural science, especially after Darwin’s publication of the Origin of Species

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page xxxi Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Preamble: Forests and Development

•

xxxi

(1859),20 became ‘thoroughly historicized’ and developed as a powerful force for mediating society’s engagement with the natural world. As a result, in the colonial context, natural science established an affinity with anthropology. 21 Within the realm of plant science, forestry played a pre-eminent role in colonial enterprise. Modern forestry, which originated in Germany, 22 had early antecedents in state forest management in Asia. In China, deforestation as a consequence of urbanization and agricultural expansion inspired conservation initiatives in the Eastern Zhou period (eighth to the third century BC), involving the creation of inspectors of forests, laws for preservation of certain tree species and restriction of harvesting to prescribed localities and seasons. 23 A more elaborate system was instituted in seventeenth-century Japan under the Tokugawa regime to offset depletion from agricultural expansion and the construction boom.24 Premised on state management of forests for sustained wood production and hydrological protection, forestry provided an indispensable tool for the fiction of British ‘advisory’ rule in the Peninsula. Introduced in 1901 after the IndoBurmese model, forestry in British Malaya was closely related to the ordering of nature within political space. Malays were contained within designated areas of a perceived Arcadian order, under a policy of paternalistic ‘peasantization’. Forest laws that assisted spatial segregation and privileged one community at the expense of another were effective tools of state power. Carried over into the post-colonial period, control over forests has remained a fundamental source of political power. Colonial forestry was less successful in its objective of promoting environmentally sustainable development, nowhere more difficult to achieve than within the ecological constraints of the tropics.25 Ultimately, the experiment with forest management for sustainability in the Peninsula was overtaken by a combination of the post-World War II boom in the tropical timber trade and the drive for plantation agriculture. Improved forest stewardship as a rational response to the pressure of postcolonial development was prejudiced by the resurgence of values and institutions entrenched in indigenous concepts of rulership. Malay nationalism reinforced the status of the hereditary rulers within the Federation.26 Patron–client relations that underpin traditional concepts of rulership and government were massively boosted under state-sponsored land development and the expansion of the timber industry. 27 The climate of favour and corruption was conducive to widespread challenge to forest laws. Indeed, this entrenched psyche of evasion may be explained in part by the culture of distrust and non-cooperation emanating from the loss of customary claims to forest use which modern forest management represented. Colonial forestry imposed restraints on the Peninsula’s expanding population.28 In so doing, like counterpart regimes elsewhere in Southeast Asia, it provoked strategies of avoidance and non-compliance. 29 Later, these same methods were co-opted by big business for illegal and ‘extra legal’ timber extraction.30

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page xxxii Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Nature and Nation

•

xxxii

S T A TE , FORES T R Y A N D CIV I L S O C I E T Y

The accelerated depletion of Southeast Asian forests, manifesting weaknesses in their management, has engendered wide debate over centrally managed scientific forestry as against the devolution of control to local authorities and communities.31 Between the two extreme positions, a third, oriented to ‘balanced development’, favours blending centrally-managed professional forestry with local and provincial participation.32 Within the Malaysian context such an approach implies achieving a rational balance of Federal with State interests. Since the 1970s, public stewardship through urban-based environmental NGOs has emerged as a force of moderation. In Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia, NGOs have played a crucial role in representing the interests of forest-dependent communities.33 In Peninsular Malaysia, by virtue of its rapid economic progress and a sharp decline in the number of forest-dependent people within its population, environmental concerns have been less oriented to poverty eradication than is the norm in the region. With improved incomes and expanding urbanization34 have come higher expectations of a better quality of life, inspiring new values of environmental stewardship. These processes of change and the countermanding politics of forest exploitation are germane to this study. Preceding World War II, the Peninsula was a place where fortunes were made at the expense of forests, for repatriation to distant homelands. Within this society of disparate identities and loyalties, forestry endeavoured to promote through conservation propaganda a sense of heritage, common destiny and public good. State-sponsored forestry, unlike the rubber and mining enterprises, emphasized regeneration, avoidance of waste, protection of landscape and rationalized land use. The early development of environmental stewardship within the Malayan forest service was in resonance with the evolution of Empire forestry in India, that also exerted a seminal influence on the conservation movement in the USA.35 By the beginning of the twentieth century, the flow and translation of ideas fostered a Euro-American lobby committed to the preservation of habitat and wildlife in the tropics. In the Peninsula during the 1930s, the move to protect wildlife from the pervasive plantation industry was rapidly transformed into a press-sponsored campaign linking ‘nature’ and ‘nation’. 36 The separation of wildlife and forest administration in colonial Malaya, unlike the arrangement in India and Burma, distanced foresters from the early wildlife campaign. But forestry’s co-evolution with tropical ecology contributed to its alignment after World War II, with rising environmental concerns articulated by civil society through domestic and international NGOs. 37 In sum, this study traces the historical links in Peninsular Malaysia between forests and the state at the crucial intersection of science and society. As well as examining the problems of sustainable forest management, it highlights the conservation discourse as providing political space and a claim to equal citizenship, based on nature as common heritage.

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page xxxiii Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Preamble: Forests and Development

•

xxxiii

ST R UCT URE AND CONTENT

Introduction Human-forest relations in the pre-colonial era were oriented to the sustainable extraction of small amounts of high-value products for subsistence and trade. Appropriation of the forest and the biotic knowledge that supported the indigenous economy was fundamental to British colonial enterprise.

Part I: Colonial Adventure and Tropical Resource, 1786–1900. Chapter 1 describes the dramatic acceleration of market forces and the Peninsula’s incorporation within the network of imperial botanical exploration, settlement and trade. Early nineteenth-century observations on the impact of pioneer forest clearance in the British settlements of Penang, Singapore and Melaka contributed to conservation initiatives in India. Chapter 2 discusses new demands on the forests, triggered by the extension of British protection over the Peninsular sultanates as of 1874. Imperial territorial control, under the cloak of ‘advisory’ rule, was assisted by the introduction in 1901 of professional forestry.

Part II: Forestry and State Formation, 1901–41. Chapters 3 and 4 describe the extension of forest management, which set aside the claims of the aboriginal and Malay communities, marginalizing their status within the forest economy. Contrastingly, as shown in Chapter 5, it proved more difficult for forestry to countenance the demands of the plantation and mining industries.

Part III: The Emergence of a Conservation Ethic, Pre-World War II. Chapter 6 argues that forestry in the Peninsula, in tune with the evolution of tropical ecology, looked beyond the immediate concerns of wood production to custodial responsibility over environmental protection. Chapter 7 examines the conflict between the plantation sector and wildlife preservation lobby. The nascent public discourse it generated was skilfully contextualized in the multiracial environment to promote the concept of nature as a basis for common identity.

Part IV: Forest Use and Abuse, 1942–69. Chapter 8 (1942–56) covers the Japanese Occupation and the Communist insurgency when the forests took on a new economic and political meaning for the populace as a whole. Post-war restoration of state control over forests precipitated the problem of widespread landlessness. At the same time, the revamped timber industry attracted post-war Malay economic aspirations, with enormous implications for resource politics in the coming decades. Chapter 9 (1957–69) highlights the impact on forest cover of accelerated land development after Independence. To compensate in part for forest loss, environmental advocacy focused on the need for more totally protected areas to be set aside as parks and reserves.

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page xxxiv Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Nature and Nation

•

xxxiv

Part V: Reconciling Nature and Nation, 1970–1980s. Chapter 10 describes the widening influence of environmental NGOs, which contributed to paving the way for the 1984 National Forestry Act. As shown in Chapter 11, enforcement of Malaysia’s National Forestry Policy, though bolstered by international initiatives for tropical forest conservation, was hampered by the politics surrounding the domestic timber industry.

Part VI: National Resource, Global Heritage, 1984–2000. Chapter 12 discusses Malaysia’s active participation in the North-South environmental debate in an effort to vindicate its international image and protect its timber trade. Chapter 13 reviews the implications for Malaysia of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and the nation’s response to the associated agreements and conventions.

Conclusion The concluding chapter, ‘Nature for Nation’, proposes that the absence of constitutional provisions to guarantee compliance of individual States with the national conservation agenda is offset to some degree by the changing socioeconomic climate and civil society’s increasing influence on environmental stewarding. NOTES 1 2

3 4 5 6 7

8

S. Schama, Landscape and Memory, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995, p. 15. F.S.P. Ng, ‘Ecological principles of tropical lowland rain forest conservation’, in S.L. Sutton, T.C. Whitmore and A.C. Chadwick (eds), Tropical Rain Forest Ecology and Management, Special Publication No. 2, British Ecological Society Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1983, p. 372; L. Adkin, ‘Democracy, ecology, political economy: Reflections on starting points’, in F.P. Gale and R.M. M’Gonigle (eds), Nature, Production, Power: Towards an Ecological Political Economy, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishers, 2000, pp. 59–81. For an arresting account of human-induced environmental degradation in the past century, see especially J.R. McNeill, Something New Under the Sun: An Environmental History of the Twentieth-Century World, New York: W.W. Norton, 2000. See Appendix 1. F.L Dunn, Rain-Forest Collectors and Traders: A Study of Resource Utilization in Modern and Ancient Malaya, Monograph No. 5, Kuala Lumpur: MBRAS, 1979, pp. 1–2, 104–111. See J. Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘Socio-political structures and the Southeast Asian ecosystem: An historical perspective up to the mid-nineteenth century’, in O. Bruun and Arne Kalland (eds), Asian Perceptions of Nature: A Critical Approach, Curzon Press, London, 1995, pp. 25–47. Dunn, Rain-Forest Collectors and Traders, p. 95. R. Chasle, ‘The ethical approach to ecology and the environment’, Abstracts from some papers at the Edinburgh Conference, Commonwealth Human Ecology Council Journal, 10 (1991) p. 27; I. R. Swingland, ‘The ecology of stability in Southeast Asia’s forests: Biodiversity and common resource property’, in R.L. Bryant, J. Rigg and P. Stott (eds), Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters, Special issue, III, iv-vi (1993) p. 291; Emil Salim and O. Ullsten, Our Forests, Our Future, Report of the World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development, Cambridge: CUP, 1999. C.P. Snow described the confluence of the two streams of knowledge producing ‘something like a third culture’. The Two Cultures (intro.), S. Collini, (Pt I, 1959, Pt II, 1964), Reprinted, Cambridge: CUP, 1993, pp. 41–51, pp. 70–71. For Donald Worster’s persuasive piece on environmental history’s role in bridging the gulf between the sciences and humanities which Snow set out to promote, see ‘The two cultures revised: Environmental history and the environmental sciences’, Environmental History, 2 (1996) pp. 3–14.

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page xxxv Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Preamble: Forests and Development 9

10 11 12 13 14

15

16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27

•

xxxv

Anderson and Grove, for example, have argued for greater dialogue between scientists and social scientists for designing more effective conservation strategies for Africa. See D. Anderson and R. Grove, Conservation in Africa: People, Policies and Practice, Cambridge: CUP, 1989, p. 8. Similarly, the integration of science with indigenous knowledge accessed through the social sciences, has been suggested for addressing problems of land degradation in Thailand. See T. Forsyth, ‘Science, myth and knowledge. Testing Himalayan environmental degradation in Thailand’, Geoforum, 27, iii (1996) pp. 375–392. For comparable cross-disciplinary, cross-sector initiatives in the form of ‘social forestry’ in Southeast Asia, see M. Poffenberger, ‘Empowering communities through forestry’, in M. Poffenberger, Keepers of the Forest: Land Management Alternatives in Southeast Asia, Manila: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1990, pp. 163–277. S.R. Aiken and C.R. Leigh, Vanishing Rain Forests: The Ecological Transition in Malaysia, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. J. Vincent, Rozali Mohamed Ali and Associates, Environment and Development in a Resource Rich Economy: Malaysia under the New Economic Policy, Cambridge Mass.: Harvard Institute for International Development, 1997, pp. 105–150. F. Majid-Cooke, The Challenge of Sustainable Forests: Forest Resource Policy in Malaysia, 1970–1995, St. Leonards, NSW, Australia: Allen and Unwin, 1999. J. Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘The implications of plantation agriculture for biodiversity in Peninsular Malaysia’, in M.R. Dove, P.E. Sajise and A. Doolittle (eds), Reinterpreting Nature and Culture in Southeast Asia. In Press. E. Hargrove, ‘Foreword’, pp. xiv-xiii; J.B. Callicott and R.T. Ames, ‘Introduction: The Asian traditions as a conceptual resource for environmental philosophy’, in Callicott and Ames, Nature in Asian Traditions of Thought: Essays in Environmental Philosophy, New York: State University of New York, 1989, pp. 6–7. J. Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘Attitudes to natural resources and environment among the upland forest and swidden communities of Southeast Asia during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries’, in R. Grove, V. Damodaran and S. Sangwan (eds), Nature and the Orient: Essays on the Environmental History of South and Southeast Asia, Delhi: OUP, 1998, pp. 927–929. See Introduction, p. 10. L. White, ‘The historical roots of our ecological crisis’, Science, 115 (1964) p. 4. L. Koerner, ‘Purposes of Linnaean travel: A preliminary research report’, in D.P. Miller and P.H. Reill (eds), Visions of Empire: Voyages, Botany and Representations of Nature, Cambridge: CUP, 1996, pp. 120, 125. K. Thomas, Man and the Natural World, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1983, p. 24. Linnaeus’s view of nature, for example, was influenced by a blend of natural theology with theories of environmental causation. C.J. Glacken, Traces on the Rhodian Shore: Nature and Culture in Western Thought from Ancient Times to the End of the Eighteenth Century, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967, pp. 510–511. Worster, ‘Two cultures revised’, p. 10. S. Kuper, ‘On human nature: Darwin and the anthropologists’, in M. Teich, R. Porter and B. Gustafsson (eds), Nature and Society in Historical Context, Cambridge: CUP, 1997, pp. 274–280. For a history of German forestry, see F. Heske, German Forestry, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1938. Yi-Fu Tuan, ‘Discrepancies between environmental attitude and behaviour: Examples from Europe and China’, Canadian Geographer, 12, iii (1968) pp. 182–183. M.M. Osako, ‘Forest preservation in Tokugawa Japan’, in R.P. Tucker and J.F. Richards (eds), Global Deforestation and the Nineteenth-Century World Economy, Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1983, pp. 129–139. J. Dargavel, ‘Tropical forest history in theory and practice’, in J. Dargavel, K. Dixon and N. Semple (eds), Changing Tropical Forests: Historical Perspectives on Today’s Challenges in Asia, Australasia and Oceania, Canberra: Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, 1988, p. 5. G.P. Means, Malaysian Politics, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1976, pp. 99–100, 177–178; A.C. Milner, ‘Inventing politics: The case of Malaysia’, Past and Present, 132 (1991) p. 109. For a summary of the geo-economic framework within which the institution of patronclient relations evolved in Southeast Asia, see J. Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘Hulu-hilir unity and conflict’, Archipel, 45 (1993) pp. 81–82; J. Kathirithamby-Wells, The Politics of Commerce in

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page xxxvi Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Nature and Nation

28

29

30

31

32

33

34 35 36 37

•

xxxvi

Southeast Asia: An Historical Perspective, Inaugural Lecture, Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press, 1992. State loyalties centred on the sovereignty of the Sultan remain important in Malay politics. Means, Malaysian Politics, pp. 20–21. Over the first four decades of British control, the Peninsula experienced more than a fourfold population increase, from about 888,000 in 1891 to 3.8 million in 1931. N. Dodge, ‘Population estimates for the Malay Peninsula in the nineteenth century, with special reference to the east coast states’, Population Studies, 34, iii (1980) p. 453; J.K.Sundaram, A Question of Class: Capital, the State, and Uneven Development in Malaya, Singapore: OUP, 1985, p. 326. See also Appendix 3. For the phenomenon in Java, see N. L. Peluso, Rich Forest, Poor People: Resource Control and Resistance in Java, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. For peasant responses in Burma and Thailand, see M. Adas, ‘From avoidance to confrontation: Peasant protest in precolonial and colonial Southeast Asia’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 23, (1981) p.423; J. Scott, Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985; ‘Everyday forms of resistance’, in F. D. Colburn (eds), Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1967, pp. 6–7, 10; R.L. Bryant, ‘Fighting over forests: Political reform, peasant resistance and the transformation of forest management in late colonial Burma’, Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 32, ii (1994) pp. 245–249; R.L. Bryant, The Political Ecology of Forestry in Burma, 1824–1994, London: Hurst, 1997, pp. 69–71. For peasant resistance in the Peninsula, see for example, Shaharil Talib, ‘Voices from the Kelantan desa, 1900–1940’, Modern Asian Studies, 17, ii (1983) p. 183. The problem of illegal logging in Indonesia, in particular, has been well researched. See J.F. McCarthy, ‘Power and interest on Sumatra’s rainforest frontier: Clientelist coalitions, illegal logging and conservation in the Alas Valley’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 33, i (2002) pp. 92–93; A. Casson and K. Obidzinski, ‘From New Order to regional autonomy: Shifting dynamics of “illegal logging”, in Kalimantan, Indonesia’. Paper presented at the’ Resource Management in Asia-Pacific Conference’, 9–11 April 2001, ANU, Canberra. n.p. Barton makes a strong case for management on the utilitarian, imperial model. This, however, cannot meet problems of forest management in the developing world, rooted in escalating population, land shortage and corruption, as evident in Thailand for example. See G. Barton, ‘Empire forestry and the origins of environmentalism’, Journal of Historical Geography, 27, iv (2001), p. 543; J. Sato, ‘Public lands for the people: The institutional basis of community forestry in Thailand’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 34, ii (2003) pp. 329–346. See D. Edmunds and E. Wollenberg, ‘Historical perspectives on forest policy change in Asia: An introduction’, Environmental History, 6, ii (2001) pp. 203–204; R.T. Bryant, J. Rigg and P. Stott, Introduction, in ‘The political ecology of Southeast Asian forests: Transdisciplinary discourses’, in Bryant, Rigg and Stott (eds), Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters, p. 110. For a brief discussion of NGO cooperation with local communities in Indonesia and Thailand, see J. Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘Forestry and stewardship in Southeast Asia, with special reference to Peninsular Malaysia’, Proceedings of the XXI IUFRO (International Union for Forest Research Organisation) World Congress, 7–12 Aug. 2000, Kuala Lumpur, in News of Forest History, No. 30 (2001) pp. 39–40; E.F. Collins, ‘Multinational capital, new order “development”, and democratization in South Sumatra’, Indonesia, 71 (2001) pp. 111–133. In 1990 urban areas accounted for 44.7 per cent of the population in the Peninsula. Sham Sani, Environment and Development in Malaysia: Changing Concerns and Approaches, Kuala Lumpur: Institute of Strategic and International Studies, 1993, p. 26. R. Grove, Green Imperialism: Colonial Expansion, Tropical Island Edens and the Origins of Environmentalism, 1600–1860, Cambridge: CUP, 1995, pp. 470–472; Barton, ‘Empire forestry and the origins of environmentalism’, pp. 533, 539–542. The term ‘nation’ is used here in the broad sense of a people belonging to a particular political and territorial entity. ‘Civil society’, as separate from the domains of state and market, may be broadly defined as serving the cause of humanity by creating a public sphere and promoting civility, public good and care of the environment. See Habibul Haque Khondker, ‘Environment and the global civil society’, in Politics and the Environment, Special Issue, Asian Journal of Social Sciences, 29, i (2001) p. 55.

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page xxxvii Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

Preamble: Forests and Development

•

xxxvii

Padang Besar ●

PERLIS

TH

Kangar ✪

Pedu Lake

AIL

AN

D

Alor Setar

Tumpat

H

R. M

erg R. P

a

u

Pengkalan Hulu

a R. Mud

✪ Kota Baharu

la ntan

●

A KE D er buk

Ke

✪

Kuala Kedah ●

R. G

al

AN G

N

ab ur

R. J

R.Jen ka R. Je mpol

R.

S

R. M e

R.

T

Ki

mb

nta

in

k n Cu R . mama Ke

k Pera R.

.B

er u k

gg

R.

a nu

N

ir Leb

RE

R.

TE

R. Temengor a N as ●Kuala Kerai m Lake A a Gerik T Se l R. SELAMA ● R . Nerus Penang AN r L o Island E i ✪ Kuala Terengganu R . Ijuk KE P .C ● i R Post r i G ▲ g KERIAN Maxwell’s Hill g n e s G Lebir N A NU R . Pe l u LARUT & ● Taiping R . Beti s Kuala MATANG Gua n ● Kangsar ere ● Musang Kenyir R. T Lojing ● Dungun PERAK Lake ▲ ● Hijau ▲ Korbu▲ Berincang R Tahan ▲ TAMAN NEGARA R ● R. Telum R. Taha n Ipoh ✪ Tanah . g Rata Cameron Highlands el R. Jelai ai Pangkor e R. Island Te ● Cukai R. Keru h Kuala ● ka . Kuala Lipis i R uang ● Tembeling ngk m m ● Teluk Intan eli PAHANG R. Teka R. Berna m Terulak Jerantut ● ● R. Kuantan ✪ Kuantan Fraser’s Kampung Hill SELANGOR Tanjung Kerau ● Malim● ▲ R. Paha ng Kuala Kubu Baharu ● Bentung ● Temerluh● ● Pekan Tasik g n Janda Baik Kuala ● Me ku a ● ● Cini R. Selangor Kepong● Batu ng R. Lui Kuala Kelang R. Ke l ang✪ Lumpur ✪ Tasik ● Shah Pulau Bera NEGERI Ketam Tioman Alam t R . L a nga SEMBILAN R . Island Seremban ✪ R. Sepang Kuala Pilah n ● i R p . R m o R. Linggi MELAKA sang ● Gemas ✪ Ke Segamat Melaka ▲ ● R. Enda u KEY ● ● Mersing Mt Ophir Muar (Ledang) ● PERAK state Labis

George Town ✪

●

R.

Se

r ting

R. B era

Map 1: Peninsular Malaysia

JOHOR

R.

district/locality ✪ Melaka state/national capital ● Kepong town ▲ Korbu hill/mountain R. Linggi river railway SELAMA

● Batu Pahat

Jo ho ●Kota r Tinggi

Johor Baharu ✪ ▲

Bukit Timah

✪ SINGAPORE

KWells_nias-hbk_prelims.fm Page xxxviii Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

KWells_book_1.fm Page 1 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Introduction: Nature, Culture and State [Nature] has lavished with unsparing prodigality, the riches of the vegetable world; notwithstanding the inferiority of the soils, climate more than compensated the loss, heat and moisture cover the lean earth with unceasing verdure, and we realize what fancy paints as the most desirable of all climes, an eternal spring. But independently of its profusion, the Botany of this place links between the Indian and Australian forms, we have types of both and many genera of either region. – T. Oxley1

he moist tropical forests of Southeast Asia shaped the evolution of the ‘Malay world’ (alam Melayu) of which Peninsular Malaysia is a part. The dense forests, penetrated by dendritic river systems, fashioned the lifestyles of the forest dwelling Orang Asli and the riverine Malays. Both evolved strategies adapted to exploiting the diversity of the forest biota, with the emphasis on a mixed economy that spread the risk posed by the unpredictable incidence of drought and flood. Despite Malay coastal dominance over the Orang Asli of the interior, the shared culture of forest dependence engendered a common corpus of knowledge and beliefs that informed their interdependence within the political economy. By the eighteenth century, the accelerated pace of European activity in the region introduced a landmark shift in resource control from the Peninsula’s coast to interior. It presaged natural science exploration of the forested hinterland as a vital part of colonial endeavour and the incorporation of related indigenous knowledge and information within Western epistemology.

T

THE RAIN FOREST ENV IRONMENT

The Malay Peninsula is largely hilly to mountainous. About 23 per cent of the land surface rises above 300 m, with the granite ridge of the north–south Main Range, running from across the Thai border to Negeri Sembilan, isolating the east coast plain from the more accessible west coast along the Melaka Straits. Another 40 per cent of the land area is above 150 m, leaving only a residual 37 per cent at plains level.2 The Peninsula’s equatorial climate is one of year-round humidity, high temperature and rainfall, with minor seasonal variations. Annual rainfall varies between 150 cm and 500 cm. The mountain ranges and hilly tracts generally have a higher rainfall than the surrounding lowlands on the

KWells_book_1.fm Page 2 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

2

leeward side of rain-bearing winds. Rains are heaviest on the east coast during the northwest monsoon (October to February) and, on the west coast, during the inter-monsoon periods (March to May and September to November). 3 The high rainfall is particularly significant because of its intensity and the steep terrain of the highlands. The warmth and moisture generally contribute to leaching and a high level of biological activity, with rapid degradation of organic matter by macro- and micro-organisms.4 The mechanical force of the rain, which contributes to compacting, particularly when the natural protective cover of the forest is removed, reduces soil absorption, accelerating surface runoff and erosion.5 The quick flowing upper reaches of rivers carry the silt from weathering and erosion. With the reduced velocity of flow in the lowlands, the rivers meander, depositing their silt load, which through the process of layering and weathering produces loamy, alluvial soils. Over-loading of silt either through human-induced or natural causes, such as landslips, can pollute rivers and impede their flow. High temperatures and rainfall combine to support fast decomposition of organic matter in the moist tropics. Rapid leaching, such that the topsoil is often less than about 2.5 cm deep even under forest cover,6 implies the existence of highly efficient systems of nutrient uptake. The evergreen vegetation provides cover that reduces erosion but cannot support large populations of mammals. The unique characteristics of the rain forest are high species diversity and low density of individuals.7 In fact, within the tropical rain forest, many plants have evolved chemical defences against leaf-damaging consumers, contributing to the high ratio of plant to animal biomass. These environmental conditions restricted human population density.8 Bridging island and mainland Southeast Asia, the Malay Peninsula represents the convergence of regional floras through processes of climatic and geological change dating back to the Tertiary period.9 The floristic intrusions contributing to the hyper-rich flora include Burmese and Thai species in the north, the Sundaic in the south and the Australian along the coast and Main Range. 10 A continental type of climate during cold phases of the Pleistocene period that exposed much of the Sunda Shelf allowed for invasion by continental taxa. It is during such periods of eustatic recession of the sea, with lower precipitation and the generation of savannah that continental mammals such as the tiger, rhinoceros, deer and wild cattle are believed to have invaded the Sunda region and the Archipelago. The simultaneous retreat of rain forest to refugia promoted geographical speciation, as did incursions of the sea with the return of interglacial conditions.11 Together these factors provided greater opportunity for continued speciation than available in equatorial Africa and America, contributing to Malesia’s status as having by far the ‘the most complex and speciesrich vegetation which exists or ever has existed on earth’.12 Among Peninsular plant species in general, estimated at about 8,000, there is a high endemism of flowering plants: 30 per cent for tree species, 90 per cent

KWells_book_1.fm Page 3 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Introduction: Nature, Culture and State

•

3

for Begoniaceae, 80 per cent for Gesneriaceae and 50 per cent for orchids. 13 Dominant in the lowland tree flora are dipterocarps, notably Anisoptera, Dipterocarpus, Dryobalanops, Hopea and Shorea, forming some 30 per cent of the individual trees and more than 55 per cent of the total wood volume. 14 Constituting the main species in the emergent stratum, the dipterocarps are both ecologically and economically significant as the major source of timber. 15 The ecological importance of the Dipterocarpaceae in the Peninsula is attested by the presence of at least 155 species, of which 28 are endemic. 16 The Peninsula boasts an equally staggering variety of animals. Among some 200 species of mammals and approximately 700 bird species, 78 per cent and 60 per cent respectively are resident in the forest.17 Endemic species include the Malayan whistling thrush (Myophonus robinsoni) and two mammal species, namely, the pygmy flying squirrel (Petaurillus kinlochii) and the Malayan mountain spiny rat (Maxomys inas).18 Of the hundreds of thousands of species of insects in the Peninsula, many still remain unknown to science. Other than the dryland lowland forest, the equatorial swamp forest remains ecologically and economically significant. The freshwater alluvial swamp carries screw-palm (mengkuang: Pandanus spp.) and palms. In the peat swamp some dipterocarps are commercially valuable.19 Moreover, the rain-fed peat swamps play a crucially important ecological function for hydrological and nutrient cycling, flood mitigation and water supply, particularly for irrigation. They are rich in aquatic life as are the mangroves (the marine alluvial swamp forests) where the stilt-rooted bakau (Rhizophora spp.) was also an important source of fuel. At the upper tidal limit occurs nipa (nipah: Nypa fruticans), extensively used traditionally for thatch and sugar.20 Greatest biodiversity occurs in the lowland and hill forest up to an altitude of about 900 m. In just 50 ha of Pasoh Forest Reserve in Negeri Sembilan – a typical example of lowland rain forest – trees of 10 cm dbh or larger represented 660 species in 244 genera, out of 2,830 species and 532 genera recorded in Peninsular Malaysia.21 The lowland inland forest shelters some 282 species of birds as against 96 species found in montane forest and 50 species habitually in mangroves.22 Of the mammals, more than 80 per cent reside in the lowlands. 23 The importance of the forest habitat to mammals is evident in the twentiethcentury depletion of the tiger (harimau: Panthera tigris) and elephant (gajah: Elephas maximus) populations and the near and the complete extinction, respectively, of the two-horned Sumatran rhinoceros (badak berendam: Dicerorhinus sumatrensis) and the one-horned Javan rhinoceros (badak raya: Rhinoceros sondaicus) through hunting and forest loss. Animals are no less critical for the survival of some flora and are believed to play a more important part than wind in the dispersal of seeds in the rain forest.24 In the climax rain forest ecosystem, interdependent plant and animal species are fine-tuned to narrow niches. Climatic events, though often localized, have demonstrated the vulnerability of the vegetation and its attendant life forms. Some time in the early 1880s, the

KWells_book_1.fm Page 4 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

1. Plants in traditional use i. Pandanus halicorpus (pandan)(T.C. Whitmore) ii. Nypa fruticans (nipah) (T.C. Whitmore) iii. Eleiodoxa conferta (kelubi/asam paya)

•

4

KWells_book_1.fm Page 5 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Introduction: Nature, Culture and State

•

5

2. Trees traditionally protected i. Koompassia excelsa (tualang), Gombak, Selangor (Earl of Cranbrook) ii. Antiaris toxicaria (ipuh) (T.C. Whitmore) iii. Dryobalanops aromatica (kapur) Kepong, Selangor (T.C. Whitmore)

KWells_book_1.fm Page 6 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

6

‘Great Wind’ (Angin Besar), an aberrant cyclone that affected northeast Kelantan and Besut in north Terengganu, destroyed large tracts of forest and was followed by forest fires, cattle disease and cholera.25 The cyclone’s impact on the forest was still evident in the 1960s in the form of dead cengal (Neobalanocarpus heimii).26 More frequent were floods. The prolonged and devastating Pahang floods of 1923 were superseded in scale and magnitude by the historic December 1926 deluge, etched in memory as ‘The Great Flood’. Affecting most parts of the Peninsula,27 it was particularly severe in Pahang. A section of the Pahang River rose to over 15 m, affecting especially the riparian landscape and vegetation. Extensive destruction of neram (Dipterocarpus oblongifolius) along the Tembeling and Jelai Rivers resulted in heavy erosion and silting, leaving some areas under a 6-m deposit.28 Appropriately, the event was remembered locally as the ‘Red Water’ (Air Merah). Thousands of houses and buffalos were lost and paddy cultivation disrupted, putting people on the move.29 Apart from landmark disasters, there is evidence from colonial records of the ENSO-related phenomenon of pronounced supra-seasonal drought, followed by flood. Such occurrences, noted during the last quarter of the nineteenth century in the Peninsula,30 appear to have been part of a wider regional phenomenon.31 The global El Niño event of 1877–79 was reflected in El Niño droughts in the region,32 the most severe on record for the century and has been compared to the more recent event of 1991–92.33 Henry Forbes, travelling in Java during 1877–78, recorded crop failure as a consequence of severe drought, with the ‘parched surface of the ground broken up into ravine-like cracks’, followed by cattle disease.34 In Borneo, cycles of drought were followed by heavy rain during the same period. ENSO as a regional phenomenon 35 made its mark in the Peninsula, as evident from scattered records. In 1890, landslides in Penang created management problems in the Waterfall Gardens. In Perak, the most serious floods on record in 1896 were preceded by drought, with an average monthly rainfall of only 11 cm during August to November. A similar phenomenon was manifested in Pahang in 1891, with abnormal precipitation in 1896, 1897 and 1898.36 In 1912, flood and cholera epidemic in north Kedah followed drought, which returned for a prolonged spell in 1919. 37 Severe drought was again experienced during 1929–30, with an average 50 cm drop in annual rainfall, and as much as 100 cm below norm in some instances. In contrast, during the northeast monsoon of 1932, floods affected the eastcoast States, inflicting serious damage to roads, railways and bridges and closed overland communications to Kelantan for some months.38 The occurrence of ENSO related events might well have contributed to widespread swiddening and the pursuit of a flexible mixed economy as adaptive strategies. CO- OP T ING NATURE

Since the final post-glacial flooding of the Sunda continental shelf around 8,000 BP, the only other significant impact on the moist tropical forests has been

KWells_book_1.fm Page 7 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Introduction: Nature, Culture and State

•

7

human induced.39 Rain forests and human society have co-evolved. Culture and nature are inextricably linked. Thus, notwithstanding the Peninsula’s sparse population until the early twentieth century, widespread shifting cultivation, with more restricted swamp clearing for rice fields, brought localized habitat transformation. Forested areas in the moist tropics, when cleared and left undisturbed, regenerate to scrub and secondary forest within about 25 years. Scrub is generally rich in pioneer species including bamboo, ginger and banana. Where colonizers in surrounding primary forest are present, the scrub begins to resemble the original forest, but for the absence of larger trees. Complete regeneration, however, is a long-term process. Soil depletion through clear felling and over-cultivation, with regular burning, can retard successional regeneration, promoting over the course of several decades the intermediate growth of Imperata cylindrica grass (lalang).40 Hunting, foraging, seed dispersal, forest clearing and the selective cultivation of food plants have played an important part in boosting some species at the expense of others, thereby altering in some way the genetic resource. 41 It has been suggested for example that the browse on abandoned swidden plots supported the survival of gaur (seladang: Bos gaurus), deer (kijang: Muntiacus muntjak) and wild pig (babi hutan: Sus spp.), which figured importantly in the economy of the Orang Asli. By opening up forest canopy on a rotational cycle and increasing the regeneration of secondary vegetation, shifting cultivation helped to expand the food resources of herbivores. 42 Commercial incentives may also have contributed to the planting and nurturing of some species of trees. Dryobalanops aromatica (kapur), the Borneo camphor tree, for example, is restricted to the eastern side of the Peninsula, excepting some smaller colonies in the west, such as near Rawang, Selangor, possibly planted by the Orang Asli because of the commercial worth of the aromatic camphor.43 As kapur is the most gregarious timber species in the Peninsula,44 it would have been practical for the Orang Asli to plant it in almost pure stands to facilitate access and claim ownership. The durian (Durio spp.) originally dispersed within the forest by animal and Orang Asli communities and planted later by settled communities, has served as an irresistible food source for humans and other mammals.45 Human activity also transformed restricted areas of biotic climax formations in the Peninsula. These areas include the Schima-bamboo forests of Perlis and northwest Kedah, north of the Malayan-Burmese floristic boundary. 46 Here intermittent cultivation, burning, grazing, cutting and firing, perhaps over several centuries, caused the original tropical lowland evergreen forest to be replaced by a mixture of the hardy remnants of old forest, with secondary species ranging from open grassland or scrub to semi-deciduous ‘invaders’.47 Similarly human-made are the gelam (Melaleuca cajuputi) swamp forests. These evolved from repeated burning of peat swamps lying inland behind the mangroves,

KWells_book_1.fm Page 8 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

8

promoting the predominance of the fire-resistant gelam.48 Large areas, originally found in Kedah and Kelantan, have long since been converted to paddy. International trade involving the extraction, transfer and dispersal of faunal and floral species across geographical and biological boundaries supported state formation in maritime Southeast Asia.49 As well as the need for salt and other necessities, the insufficiency of starchy foods within the rain forest was an inducement for trade among forest dwellers with coastal and riverine communities.50 The resulting movement of forest products from the interior fuelled the growth of maritime trade. The internationalization of Southeast Asian forest produce well preceded the fifteenth-century expansion of the maritime spice trade. Aromatics, resins51 and scented woods52 were exported to China by various Peninsular chiefdoms from the fifth century AD. As of the ninth century, a complementary trade was established with the Arabs. Throughout the period of early trade, wildlife exports in the form of beeswax, kingfisher feathers and stick-lac (embalau: from Laccifer lacca)53 were dominant in the exports to China. Monkeys and elephants were among the items carried by the Arabs, and ivory and rhinoceros horn figured importantly in both sectors of trade.54 Exchange by the Orang Asli of forest products for rice, salt and manufactures with the Malays, and the exaction of taxes from trade by the rulers and chiefs, was central to the political economy. 55 By the fifteenth century, when Melaka emerged as an international port, scented woods, resins, rattan, mats and tin supplemented pepper and spice exports. With the exception of birds’ feathers, there was a conspicuous absence of animal products in its exports,56 suggesting the increasing rarity of these commodities, perhaps through over-exploitation. Commercial incentives that contributed to the depletion of some elements of the biota brought the addition of others to the Peninsula. In early modern times the black pepper (Piper nigrum), for example, was introduced from Malabar. Vines cultivated as a cash crop in Perak, Kedah and Pahang suffered extirpation under Aceh’s Sultan Iskandar Muda (r. 1607–36), who restricted local cultivation to Langkawi. Production for the external market revived in the eighteenth century in Kelantan and Terengganu.57 Casual cultivation of the crop, within a swidden mix and environmentally sound rotational cycles contrasted with the later degradation of forests to grasslands under Chinese monocultivation (see pp. 37–38, 65). Significant also was transference of economic plants from the Neotropics into the Asian tropics by the Portuguese and Spanish. Sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) and, to a lesser extent, maize (Zea mays) supplanted or supplemented taro (Colocasia esculenta), yam (Dioscorea alata) and the more labour-intensive production of hill rice among shifting cultivators.58 More revolutionary in the humid tropics was the nineteenth-century introduction of cassava (Manihot esculenta), with a higher starch output per unit area of cultivated land than rice and greater tolerance of poor soils.59 Cassava was inter-planted with other

KWells_book_1.fm Page 9 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Introduction: Nature, Culture and State

•

9

crops by Orang Asli60 and opened up new opportunities for raising an easy subsistence. The new crops were integrated within the swidden mix of root crops, grain, shrubs, vines, herbs, trees and grasses that mimicked the richness of the forest, reducing the risk of plant disease.61 The avoidance of weeding after planting and fallowing, which helped forest regeneration at the end of cultivation cycles, meant that Orang Asli and Malay ‘forest farming’ effected little environmental damage in the long-term. This is not to preclude some structural changes in the plant community, as fallow periods were seldom sufficient for total regeneration of old stands. It is estimated that among Orang Asli, the Semang operated within an average area of 400–500 ha, allowing for long fallows.62 In the long-term, the effects of cultivation favoured fire-resistant species as well as some light-loving trees, transient in the climax forest. 63 NATURE AND CULTURE

Anthropomorphic perceptions of nature among the aboriginal and Malay communities manifested the close bond between people and forests, supporting belief in a shared vital force or soul (semangat). This was attested, for example, in the widespread belief in were-tigers (harimau akuan/ jadi-jadian), regarded as actually humans in another form.64 As a result of the late advent of development in the Peninsula, rich vestiges of a forest-dominated cultural heritage survived into the modern period. Commenting on the centrality of the forest to the Malays, one observer recorded: [T]he true Malays … will not dwell within, but are not really happy if they dwell far from the forest. They eat the foods of civilised folk, but they intermingle these with the food of the forest. The forest gives them timber for house and household goods, drugs for days of sickness, flowers and scents for days of festival, dark and deadly poisons for those deeds of revenge … and potent charms for the hunter of animals and the lover of pretty women! And Moslem though he be, from the forests of Malaya, the Malay, like the Semang and Sakai, derives no small portion of his religious belief, dreading, yet propitiating, the elemental forces with which he has peopled their depths.65

Malay slave-raiding and encroachment on Orang Asli swidden land bred tension and led to intermittent hostilities. In the main, the ambiguous mixture of rivalry and respect between them underscored mutual dependence on the forest.66 Fear of powerful forces, such as thunderstorms and tigers, contributed to common animistic traditions among Malay and Orang Asli communities that ‘blended socially at the edges’, and intermarriage was not unknown.67 It was said of the part-Negrito Tok Bahaman, the Orang Kaya Semantan who led the Pahang Rebellion (1891–95): He had a unique knowledge of jungle craft gained from his scouting expeditions all over Pahang and Selangor, and was intimately acquainted with the language, customs and forest-lore of the aboriginal tribes of his district.68

KWells_book_1.fm Page 10 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

10

Beneath the overlay of Islamic faith and ritual, Malays shared a substratum of beliefs with the Orang Asli. The immortal ‘Kari’, or god of thunder and lightning of the Negritos, was ‘Raja Angin’ to the Malays.69 Other aspects of nature, such as the deep wilderness, howling storms and dangerous waterfalls, were viewed as embodying powerful spirits (hantu). Similarly, the tiger, rhinoceros and elephant were attributed supernatural power.70 Animistic beliefs were absorbed into the corpus of religious myth. All trees were planted by the Prophet Elias, for example, and were under the care of the Prophet Noah. 71 Hunters and trappers ritually evoked Solomon’s reputed magical skills.72 Malays regarded aborigines as socially inferior but believed they had supernatural powers and relied on their reputedly superior knowledge of plants and animals of special value. Orang Asli dukun or bomoh73 (healers or medicine men) traditionally enjoyed a wide clientele amongst Malays and even Chinese.74 Indeed, Chinese courted indigenous supernatural beliefs in the hope of enhancing their fortunes. In the early days a Chinese entering a mine customarily took off his shoes and folded his umbrella as a sign of deference to the tin spirit.75 Faith in the efficacy of keramat, or sacred places and objects perceived to have magical powers, fostered a bond among the Peninsula’s ethnic communities. Also regarded as keramat were some animals, especially tigers and crocodiles.76 Belief in the supernatural helped preserve key items of economic use. The giant bee (Apis dorsata), valuable for its wax and honey, nests in the widespreading crown of the tall tualang (Koompassia excelsa), inaccessible to bears (beruang: Helarctos malayanus), and was protected by taboo (pantang). As death was predicted for any who cut it down, the tualang was customarily left standing when the forest was cleared for cultivation. 77 Invocation of spirits by pawang (shaman) preceded the collection of honey, as with all other valuable products, including eaglewood (gaharu: Aquilaria malaccensis) and camphor.78 The costly rituals and the ‘crushing royalties’ demanded by rulers over exportable items may also have exercised a degree of restraint on pre-modern extraction. 79 The Perak royal monopoly over the harvesting of river-turtle eggs, a great delicacy among Malays, ensured sustainable stocks. Generally, the first and second layings of the annual season were collected, leaving the third for the breeding of young for the next cycle of production.80 Apart from the small population size, traditional strategies for protecting subsistence needs contributed to sustainable levels of forest exploitation. Jungle dwellers gathered food from the wild with minimal destruction and they fired bamboo clumps to stimulate the growth of young shoots.81 To ensure provision for the future, Temuan harvesting of rattan was reputedly restricted to mature stands.82 The exigencies of subsistence rather than a conservation ethic would appear to have dictated sustainable natural resource utilization, abandoned under the influence of new market opportunities for bulk production. 83

KWells_book_1.fm Page 11 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Introduction: Nature, Culture and State

•

11

FORE S T S A N D L IVE L I H O O D S

The pervasiveness of the Peninsula’s forests influenced the Malay concept of ‘nature’, perceived in the pre-modern era as synonymous with the world/ universe (alam).84 Within the generic term ‘hutan’ or ‘forest’, a recognized utilitarian distinction has existed between ‘primary forest’ (hutan asli or rimba) and ‘secondary forest’ or scrub (belukar). Well into the nineteenth century, most of the Peninsula was forested. Settled population was confined mainly to the lower river valleys and coastal plains suited to paddy cultivation, principally in Kedah, Negeri Sembilan and Kelantan. Hugh Clifford described, with as much passion as practical knowledge, a seemingly impenetrable jungle traversed by an intricate network of rivers. If you could strip any river basin, in the Peninsula, of its forests, and could then lay bare its water-system, you could find that it presented, on a gigantic scale, an appearance very similar to that of the skeleton leaf. The main river would represent the midrib; the principal tributaries falling into it would supply the place of the branching spines; and the myriad tiny streams and rivulets … would be the numberless delicate veins of the leaf. All the spaces and interstices, which in the skeleton are found between midrib and spine, and spine and vein, are, in the river basin, wide tracts of forest-clad country, intersected, and cut up, across, and through and through, by the rivers and streams of the most lavish water-system in the world.85

Within the Malay worldview, the symbiosis between the forest frontier and interior was encapsulated in the concept of upriver-downriver or hulu-hilir interaction.86 Rivers that provided the only access into the interior were often fully navigable. The Pahang River, for example, was navigable for about 320 km.87 Rivers determined the configuration of settlements that clustered along the banks, less than a kilometre deep, beyond which ‘the forest shut down like a wall about a kitchen garden’.88 The thick undergrowth, a characteristic of the secondary forest that fringed cultivated areas, served as a natural barrier from the forest hinterland. Malay contact with the interior was ordinarily limited to hunting, slave-raiding89 and jungle produce collection along footpaths and tracks, beyond which the Orang Asli moved freely in the remote reaches of river systems. The highland backbone of the Main Range, in combination with the all-pervading forests that limited communication and settlement to the river valleys, contributed to the emergence of riverine chiefdoms. These minor polities were subsumed within the forest-based economies of the maritime empires of Srivijaya, during the last quarter of the first millennium, and Melaka, during the fifteenth-century.90 The density both of dryland and swamp forest bordering narrow inlets, coves and tributaries rendered the Malay coast ideally suited for marauding, widely resorted to by chiefs when dislodged from their power base. The jungle precluded open battles and, by providing concealment, allowed for strategies of

KWells_book_1.fm Page 12 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

12

surprise and easy retreat, incurring low casualties. Sultan Ahmad of Melaka, when overwhelmed by Portuguese firepower in 1511, withdrew to the interior of Muar before taking refuge in the remote State of Pahang.91 Throughout history, political dissidents and rebels sought refuge in the hulu, within reach of interior resources and potential allies. In pre-colonial Malaya, the negeri or state, constituted a cluster of forestfringed settlements within one or more river systems, owing allegiance to the Sultan. Fundamental to statecraft was the ruler’s ability to win the loyalty of the influential chiefs (orang kaya) and royalty (kerabat di-raja) through the distribution of largess. This was commonly in the form of rights to extract forest products and minerals, and taxes on the export of natural resources.92 Sovereign authority over all land rested with the ruler but the sparse population, the abundance of still uncleared forest land and the predominantly subsistence economy precluded the Sultan’s exercise of proprietary control, allowing for customary rights of usufruct. In as much as individual rights prevailed over all land that was cleared and occupied, uncleared land was open to access and use. 93 In the absence of land tax,94 the ruler’s revenues were derived from dues on the export of marketable jungle produce, including a variety of gums and resins such as camphor, benzoin (from Styrax benzoin) and ju (a substitute for frankincense), collected at strategic locations at river mouths and confluences. Apart from payment on exports, subjects of the ruler enjoyed free access to forest produce collection, barring his monopoly over select and expensive items of scarcity such as rhinoceros horn, elephant tusks and gaharu. Also excluded from public access were some of the best hunting grounds around salt licks, earmarked as royal preserves (see p. 200). As in other areas of the moist tropical forests of Southeast Asia, the collection of widely dispersed forest products for external markets drew the Orang Asli of the hinterland into a three-tiered exchange system. Orang Asli bartered with Malay traders, linked to more prosperous merchant-chiefs and foreign traders at the river mouth (kuala). Rarer items for export and commoner consumables for the domestic market, especially bamboo and petai (Parkia spp.) bean, were exchanged for cloth, rice and tobacco.95 Within the pre-capitalist economy, modest market demands were conducive to the pursuit of a stable subsistence regime within a self-regulating system of resource regeneration. The indigenous economy, whether based on shifting hill-rice (huma/ladang) or wet-rice or paddy (sawah/bendang) cultivation, was inextricably linked to the forest. Paddy cultivation was ideally situated along the river fringe, drawing water and nutrients from the forested uplands. Equally, for swidden cultivation, accessibility to the forest was indispensable for fresh clearings made yearly or biennially as the old plots became exhausted and were invaded by weeds. 96 The importance of regeneration within the cycle of shifting cultivation is enshrined in the Malay practice of land regeneration through allowing secondary forest growth. Sensitive adaptation to the forest’s regenerative processes helped the

KWells_book_1.fm Page 13 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Introduction: Nature, Culture and State

•

13

Semai Senoi aboriginal horticulturalists, for example, to cultivate a wide variety of crops.97 Apart from the low-bulk demands of the pre-capitalist market, the ratio of population to climax forest sustained rotational cycles for shifting cultivation. Thus, the impact of Malay and Orang Asli activity was limited to small patches, leaving the forest cover itself largely intact. The wide range of vegetable and animal products furnished by the forest shaped indigenous life and economy. Besides providing pharmaceutical and culinary herbs and fruit, the forests furnished wood for fuel and materials for the construction of dwellings and boats. Nipa, sago palm (rumbia: Metroxylon sagu) and bertam (Eugeissona tristis) were used for thatch.98 Other forest products commonly utilized were mengkuang or screw-palm for making mats and medical preparations;99 nibung (Oncosperma tigillarium) for fish traps, rafters and laths for flooring;100 and resam (Gleichenia linearis) for pens,101 matting and rough ropes. Rattans (Calamus spp.) were skilfully made into baskets, mats and fish traps. Bamboo, which fast filled forest gaps and clearings, was indispensable for the construction of houses and rafts, as well as for making household utensils, tools, water pipes, mats, baskets and musical instruments. Bamboo and scrub harboured herbivores and deer, especially, were widely hunted for meat. Jungle produce found a multiplicity of other uses. Besides providing fuel, the rot-resistant gelam was used for posts, piling and shipbuilding and its papery bark for caulking boats. The pharmaceutical oil extracted, containing cineole, was both exported and used locally for treating ailments.102 The kelubi or asam paya (Eleiodoxa conferta), also from the peat swamp forest, served a variety of uses. Apart from the leaves utilized for roofing and matting, the berries (much loved by elephants) served as a sour relish and had medicinal uses 103 Among essential plant extracts were dammar from dipterocarps for torches, and wood oil (minyak keruing), specifically from Dipterocarpus.104 Although Malay villages were confined to the forest fringe, their orchards and kitchen gardens melded into dense scrub, fringing the forest hinterland. 105 Before becoming restricted to the upper river valleys of Kedah, Perak, Terengganu and Pahang following British control, hill rice had often supplemented paddy in the coastal plains, because of its reputedly superior flavour. With a mix of other crops, including maize, sweet potato and cassava, it also provided a safety net in times of paddy failure or social unrest.106 Varying conditions of moisture and soil guaranteed swiddens a significant place within the Malay village (kampung) landscape. Their year-round productivity ideally complemented seasonal wet rice harvests.107 In addition, sugar cane, bananas and a host of useful herbs and fruit trees from the wild were cultivated within orchards. 108 These served as indicators of settlement and ownership, while pepper and, later, coffee and tobacco provided a modest source of cash income, linking the village with the external economy.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 14 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

14

Attesting to the importance of the forest to the peasant economy is the wealth of plant names in the Malay lexicon. The language, whether of everyday life or literature, is replete with images drawn from nature.109 Scenes of forestrelated activity, such as forest felling, collection of fruits and herbs, bird-trapping and deer-hunting are widely evoked in the pantun, the popular quatrain improvised as a community sport. In the nostalgic rural landscape, powerfully evoked in Shahnon Ahmad’s novel, No Harvest but a Thorn, the scrub (belukar) in the immediate vicinity, the jungle (rimba) at a visible distance and the niparich mangroves on the further side of the paddy fields, form part and parcel of the fabric of peasant life.110 NEW MAR KE T FORCE S

The forest economy that originally drew external trade to Peninsular markets experienced a resurgence with the eighteenth-century expansion of European trade with China. It encouraged the more active participation of the Malay ruling class in resource extraction111 and pushed political and economic control further into the interior than at any other time before. Sultan Muzaffar of Perak (d. 1752) shifted his capital upriver to Kuala Kangsar to take advantage of the hinterland wealth in tin and elephants. The ruler of Kedah enforced a monopoly on the export of both tin and rattan from the interior.112 This trade, together with the export of dammar and bird’s nests to China and elephants to the Coromandel, fostered the growth of a favoured and influential class of merchant elite (orang kaya).113 Elephants, long recognized as a royal monopoly, were used extensively in war and served as indispensable beasts of burden and draught animals. Thought to be equal to the much-esteemed Siamese breed, Malay elephants were skilfully trapped and shipped in large numbers by Chulia traders to the Coromandel, causing a drain on local stocks.114 In Terengganu, the upswing in the export of camphor, rattan, pepper and tin for the Chinese market marked the extension of control over the interior river valleys by the royalty (kerabat di-raja) and ruling elite.115 The scale of the trade in forest products is attested by a Dutch report that, in 1777, a single Chinese vessel left Kuala Terengganu bearing an impressive cargo of 600 kg wax, 90 kg elephant’s tusks, 1,200 kg dammar and 1,020 bundles of rattan.116 Sovereign claims in the Peninsula superseded usufruct as rulers rapidly institutionalized their rights to tin prospecting and forest-produce extraction. By the turn of the century cash cropping, timber extraction and mining intensified at the expense of forests.117 The panning of alluvial tin in the rivers of the Peninsula, going back to at least the tenth century,118 left hardly any imprint on the landscape. In contrast, lode mining, which appears to have spread rapidly to meet rising European demand, involved complete removal of tree cover, including the roots. 119 The extension of nineteenth-century Chinese mining, backed by capital and labour and assisted by the introduction of the palung method of tin extraction, left a

KWells_book_1.fm Page 15 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Introduction: Nature, Culture and State

•

15

deeply scarred landscape, covered in tailings.120 At the same time, trails for conveying tin and supplies for the mines pushed deeper into the forest, with many gradually upgraded to bullock-, elephant- and cart tracks. Following in the trail of mining entrepreneurs, Chinese peddlers and shopkeepers penetrated the interior and fast superseded the Malays as middlemen in the trade with Orang Asli foragers of jelutong (from Dyera costulata) and gutta-percha (from Palaquium gutta). CULTURE AND KNOW LEDGE

Nature, encompassing people, plant life and wildlife, underpinned the Malay political economy. As Klaus Seeland observed, ‘What indigenous people know is drawn from their experience of appropriating nature as culture’. 121 Indigenous knowledge was co-opted by colonial enterprise for mapping the biotic resources of the Peninsula. Early scholar-administrators and scientists such as I.H. Burkill, H.C. Robinson, J.D.Gimlette, W.W. Skeat, R.J. Wilkinson and R.O. Winstedt explored Malay botany, zoology, medicine, ethnography and literature. Their interests intermeshed, exposing the integrity of culture and nature in the Malayan environment. Faced with thousands of species unknown to science, pioneer botanists and foresters relied on indigenous knowledge for their identification.122 As many plant names were often local, confined to one valley or area, indigenous collectors proved indispensable for identifying plants and determining their distribution.123 Orang Asli, reportedly, were able to identify a wide range of plants, many new to science.124 Malays with a reputedly keen sense of observation shared a collective vocabulary of some 500 names for fish, for example, with at least an equal number for birds.125 Botanists noted that almost all plant life had vernacular names, frequently with some local variations. These were applied with accuracy and often pointed to their uses.126 Malayan plant names, such as kempas (Koompassia), pandan (Pandanus) and nipah (Nypa) were absorbed into scientific nomenclature127 while still others, such as cengal and meranti, have become well-known international trade names. No collecting expedition set out without indigenous guides and informants. Best known, perhaps, is Alfred Wallace’s Malay collector, who adopted the name Ali Wallace.128 Many indigenous collectors were recruited into the technical services of the botanical, forest and museum services. Nathaniel Cantley, Superintendent of the Singapore Botanic Gardens (1880–88), pioneered the herbarium by employing native collectors, as did his successor, H. N. Ridley, doyen of Malayan botany.129 An early employee of Ridley was Tassim Daud (1886–95), collector and herbarium keeper in the Singapore Gardens. 130 During 1892–1912, Mohamed Haniff, though only ranked a Field Assistant, was put in complete charge of the Waterfall Gardens in Penang. 131 His botanical contributions are commemorated in the genus Haniffia (Zingiberaceae) and other Malayan plants.132 A contemporary, Mohamed Nur Mohamed Ghose,

KWells_book_1.fm Page 16 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

16

3. Purveyors of indigenous botanical knowledge i. Malay medicine man (bomoh), Straits Settlements, c. 1890 (KITLV, Leiden) ii. Plant collector: Mohamed Haniff, 1872–1930 (Singapore Botanic Gardens)

employed in the Singapore Botanic Gardens, collected extensively in Sumatra and the Peninsula for Ridley and the eminent Harvard botanist, E.D. Merrill. 133 Leonard Wray, Curator of the Perak Museum (1883–1903) and a keen botanist, had among his staff the collector and taxidermist, Jellah. 134 Taha Bador, who joined the Forest Department in 1915, left his mark as a collector, mainly in north Perak.135 The Orang Asli Forest Guards, Tachun Baba and Sow Tandang, who served during the inter-war period, manifested Orang Asli skills in tree climbing and plant identification.136 Important for setting biological discoveries on record were the services of Asian artists. A Chinese from Macau, engaged by Stamford Raffles in Melaka in 1811, was described ‘as very experienced at drawing life-like pictures of fruit and flowers’. These artists made possible the biological records of Raffles and William Farquhar.137 Later, the Garden Superintendent at the Penang Botanic Gardens, Walter Fox (1889–1910), put to good use the artistic talents of the propagator, Mohamed Hussein, for illustrating a large number of new or imperfectly known plants.138 Within the multi-ethnic network of botanical endeavour were the Portuguese-Eurasian collectors, M.V. Alvis and E. Fernandez. Thousands of specimens collected by them from around Melaka and Negeri Sembilan found their way to the herbariums in Singapore and Kew. 139 Also known is the contribution of the south Indian collectors, ‘Verapha’ (Virappah?)

KWells_book_1.fm Page 17 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Introduction: Nature, Culture and State

•

17

and ‘Nhingghull’, probably acquainted with Indian herbal traditions, and employed by the Melaka surgeon, W. Griffith (1810–45).140 Colonial Botanica Medica, linking nature and culture, drew from the wide spectrum of Oriental systems of knowledge and beliefs, ranging from the sophisticated Ayurvedic practices of the vaidyar (traditional doctors) of seventeenthcentury Malabar,141 to the ‘magical’ cures of the pawang142 and bomoh of the Indonesian-Malay world.143 Herbs were an indispensable part of healing and Malay rituals related to blessing fish traps, propitiating the rice spirit and fulfilling rites of passage.144 The pioneer edition of the Medical Book of Malayan Medicine by the surgeon J.D. Gimlette was based on a c.1888 Malay translation by Munshi Ismail of information on medical herbs, originally recorded in Arabic by an anonymous indigenous practitioner.145 Again, Burkill, as Director of Gardens in the Straits Settlements (1912–25), collaborated with Mohamed Haniff in publishing Malay Village Medicine. The enterprise, based on a Peninsula-wide search for data, drew on Malay and aboriginal knowledge, as well as information from Chinese herbalists (sinseh), who serviced the wellpatronized medicine shops found in most townships.146 Malay plant knowledge left a significant mark also on industry. Properties of the gutta-percha, learned from Malays by the European medical fraternity, paved the way for the telegraphic revolution (see pp. 69–71). Another Malayan contribution to the scientific revolution was Derris elliptica or tuba root, used for poisoning fish in rivers.147 Gimlette’s observation, in 1902, of its adoption by Chinese gardeners to kill caterpillars, and its subsequent experimentation by H.E. Durham, constituted a crucial step towards the worldwide adoption of insecticides.148 Colonies were sought essentially for resource extraction to fuel Europe’s Industrial Revolution and burgeoning capitalist enterprise. Attainment of this objective through scientific exploration, employing indigenous knowledge, experience and talent, was impelled by the perceived moral purpose of spreading ‘civilization’. The emergence of ethnology as an offshoot of natural science was symptomatic of the common acknowledgement by expeditioner, collector and administrator that the success of the colonial venture was contingent upon mediating the links between nature and culture.149 The Malay Peninsula, with its largely unexplored forests and a commercially oriented society, offered ideal conditions for such an enterprise. NOTES 1 2 3 4 5

T. Oxley, ‘The botany of Singapore’, JIA, 4 (1850) p. 436. J. Wyatt-Smith, Manual of Malayan Silviculture for Inland Forests, Malayan Forest Records, No. 23, Kuala Lumpur: Forest Research Institute, Malaysia, 1995, vol. I, p. II–2/2. H.D. Tjia, ‘The physical setting’, in Earl of Cranbrook (ed.), Key Environments: Malaysia, Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1988, pp. 5–7. T.C. Whitmore, Tropical Rain Forests of the Far East, Oxford: OUP, 1984, p.138. Wyatt-Smith, Manual of Malayan Silviculture, vol., I, p. II–2/12.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 18 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30

•

18

Ibid., vol., I, p. II–2/13. Aiken and Leigh, Vanishing Rain Forests, pp. 3–4. K.L. Hutterer, ‘People and nature in the tropics: Remarks concerning ecological relationships’, in K.L Hutterer, A.T. Rambo and G. Lovelace (eds), Cultural Values and Human Ecology in Southeast Asia, Michigan Papers on South and Southeast Asia, No. 27, Ann Arbor, 1985, pp. 64–65. Whitmore, Tropical Rain Forests of the Far East, p. 13; Aiken and Leigh, Vanishing Rain Forests, pp. 21–23. Wyatt-Smith, Manual of Malayan Silviculture, vol. I, p. III–7/5. R. J. Morley and J.R. Flenley, ‘Late Cainozoic vegetational and environmental changes in the Malay Archipelago’, in T.C. Whitmore (ed.), Biogeographical Evolution of the Malay Archipelago, Oxford: Clarendon, 1987, pp. 50–59. T.C. Whitmore, ‘Forest Types and Forest Zonation’, in Cranbrook (ed.), Key Environments, p. 20; Whitmore, Tropical Rain Forests of the Far East, p. 238; N. Myers, The Sinking Ark: A New Look at the Problems of Disappearing Species, Oxford: Pergamon Press, p.134. M. N. Collins, J. A. Sayer and T. C. Whitmore, The Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests: Asia and the Pacific, London: Simon & Schuster, 1991, p. 187. C.F. Symington, Forester’s Manual of Dipterocarps, Malayan Forest Records, No. 16 (First published 1943, Singapore), Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press, 1974, p. xii. These have been mainly the light-hardwood meranti (Shorea spp.), the medium-hardwood keruing (Dipterocarpus spp.) and the heavy-hardwood cengal (Neobalanocarpus heimii), merbau (Intsia palembanica and Shorea spp.) and resak (Vatica spp.). Wyatt-Smith, Manual of Malayan Silviculture, I, p. III–5/S5. M. Jacobs, ‘The Dipterocarps’, Cranbrook (ed.), Key Environments, p. 34. Collins, et al., Conservation Atlas, p. 187; D.R. Wells, ‘Birds’, in Cranbrook (ed.), Key Environments. Wells, ‘Birds’, pp. 169–70; Cranbrook, ‘Mammals: Ecology and distribution’, in Cranbrook (ed.), Key Environments, p. 148. Wyatt-Smith, Manual of Malayan Silviculture, vol. I, pp. III–5/S5–10, III–7/27. Ibid., pp. III–5/S5–10, III–7/28–31; I.H. Burkill, A Dictionary of the Economic Products of the Malay Peninsula (First published 1936, London), Kuala Lumpur, Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives: Govt. of Malaysia and Singapore, 1966, II, pp. 1583–1587. E. Soepadmo, ‘Plant diversity of the Malesian tropical rain forest and its phytogeographical and economic significance’, in R. B. Primack and T.E. Lovejoy (eds), Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Southeast Asian Rain Forests, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995, p. 21; F.S.P. Ng, Tree Flora of Malaya, vol. IV, Kuala Lumpur: Longmans, 1989. Wells, ‘Birds’, p.168. W.E. Stevens, ‘The conservation of wildlife in Malaya’, Seremban, Malaysia: Office of the Game Department, 1968, p. 99. Whitmore, Tropical Rain Forests of the Far East, p.75. The hurricane has been dated variously at 1880, 1881 and 1883. See R.D. Hill, Rice in Malaya: A Study in Historical Geography, Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1977, p 65 n.; W.A. Graham, Kelantan: A State of the Malay Peninsula, Glasgow: James Maclehose, 1908, p. 16; H. Clifford, ‘Expedition to Trengganu and Kelantan’, JMBRAS, 34, i (1961) p. 116, F.G. Browne, ‘Storm forest in Kelantan’, Malayan Forester, 12 (1949), pp. 28–31. H. Clifford, ‘A journey through the Malay States of Trengganu and Kelantan’, Geographical Journal, 9, i (1897) p. 14; Wyatt-Smith, Manual of Malayan Silviculture, vol. I, p. III–7/15. R.G. Cant, An Historical Geography of Pahang, Monograph 4, Singapore: Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (MBRAS), 1973, pp. 115–116. E.J.H. Corner, Wayside Trees of Malaya, vol. I, Singapore: Govt. Press, 1951, p. 211; Cant, Pahang, p. 117; A. Gopinath, Pahang, 1880–1933: A Political History, Monograph 8, Kuala Lumpur: MBRAS, 1991, p. 209. Cant, Pahang, pp. 116–17. Perak State Council Minutes, 3 Nov. 1879, in P.L. Burns, (selected and intro.) R. J. Wilkinson, Papers on Malay Subjects (First published 1907, Revised 1923), Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1971, p. 206; F. Swettenham’s covering letter to his ‘Report on the Audit of the Native States’, Parliamentary Records, Accounts and Papers, Colonial, LI (1878–79), p. 423; E.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 19 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Introduction: Nature, Culture and State

31

32

33

34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

43

44 45

46 47 48

•

19

Sadka, The Protected Malay States, 1874–1895, Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press, 1968, p. 353; Lim Teck Gee, Peasants and their Agricultural Economy, 1874–1941, Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1977, pp. 39, 45, 60 n. 40, 82, 99 n. 48. Insect infestation that resulted in crop failure, in 1874, is thought to have been drought-related. See P.L. Burns (ed.), The Journal of J.W.W. Birch: First British Resident to Perak, 1874–1875, Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1976, p. 68. For correlations between local events and the regional patterns, see N. Nicholls, ‘ENSO, drought and flooding rain in South-East Asia’, in H. Brookfield and Y. Byron (eds), SouthEast Asia’s environmental future: The Search for Sustainability, Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 1993, Table 7.8, p. 173. See Appendix 5. H. Knapen, Forests of Fortune? The Environmental History of Southeast Borneo, 1600–1880, Verhandelingen, 189, Leiden: KITLV, 2001, Appendix 1; R. Grove and J. Chappell, ‘El Niño chronology and the history of global crisis during the Little Ice Age’, El Niño-History and Crisis: Studies from the Asia Pacific Region, London: White Horse, 2000, pp. 5–34 L. Potter, ‘Banjarese in and beyond Hulu Sungai, South Kalimantan: A study of cultural independence, economic opportunity and mobility’, in J. T. Lindblad (ed.), New Economic Challenges in the Modern Economic History of Indonesia, Leiden: Programme of Indonesian Studies, 1993, p. 270. H. Forbes, A Naturalist’s Wanderings in the Eastern Archipelago (First published 1885, New York), Singapore: OUP, 1989, pp. 75–76. See Nicholls, ‘ENSO, drought and flooding rain’, Table 7.8, p. 173. Lim, Peasants and their Agricultural Economy, pp. 37, 39, 45, 61 n.47; Hill, Rice in Malaya, pp. 105–106. ‘Annual Reports: Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan and Trengganu’, Parliamentary Records, Accounts and Papers, Cd. 6553, No. LX, 1912–13, p. 201; Annual Report, Kedah 1919, p. 540. ‘Summary of Observations’, Malayan Meteorological Observations, 1929–1931, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1930–1932. S. Oppenheimer, Eden in the East: The Drowned Continent of Southeast Asia, Phoenix: Guernsey, C. I., 1998, pp. 36–38. Cant, Pahang, p. 13. T. Rambo, ‘Primitive man’s impact on genetic resources of the Malaysian tropical rain forest,’ Malaysian Applied Biology, 8, i (1979) p. 59. T. Rambo, ‘Human ecology of the Orang Asli: A review of research on the environmental relations of the aborigines of Peninsular Malaysia’, JFMSM, 24 (1979) pp. 54–55, 58; J.Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘Human impact on mammal populations in Peninsular Malaysia’, in P. Boomgard, F. Colombijn and D. Henley (eds), Paper Landscapes : Explorations in the Environmental History of Indonesia, Leiden: KITLV Press, 1997, pp. 215–219. Whitmore, Tropical Rain Forests of the Far East, p. 221. Dryobalanops aromatica occurs specifically in three areas of Rawang district, namely, Kanching, Serendah and Bukit Legung. Wyatt-Smith, Manual of Malayan Silviculture, vol. II, p. III–9/3.The camphor, which accumulates very irregularly in the trunk, was tested for its presence by making a hole. When identified, the tree was hacked down and chopped to bits in the search for resin. By the twentieth century the timber from kapur gained value. Burkill, Economic Products, vol. I, pp. 877–878. Wyatt-Smith, Manual of Malayan Silviculture, vol. II, p. III–9/2. Whitmore, Tropical Rain Forests of the Far East, p. 45; Burkill, Economic Products, vol. I, pp. 887–888. It is believed that a clump of durian trees observed in the 1930s on the State boundary between Dungun and Tembeling, on the lower slopes of Gunung Mandi Angin, was planted in c. 1862 on the orders of the Pahang prince, Wan Ahmad. Mubin Sheppard, Taman Budiman, Memoirs of an Unorthodox Civil Servant, Kuala Lumpur: Heinemann Educational Books, 1979, p. 54. This boundary runs from Kangar, Perlis, to Patani on the east coast and not as in the ‘Vegetation Map of Malaya, 1962’, in Wyatt-Smith, Manual of Malayan Silviculture, vol. I, facing p. III–7/58. Symington, Forester’s Manual of Dipterocarps, pp. xx–xxi; Wyatt-Smith, Manual of Malayan Silviculture, vol. I, p. III–7/17. Symington, Forester’s Manual of Dipterocarps, p. xxi; Wyatt-Smith, Manual of Malayan Silviculture, vol. II, p. III–15/34.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 20 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

20

49 J. Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘Introduction: An Overview’, in J. Kathirithamby-Wells and J. Villiers (eds), The Southeast Asian Port and Polity: Rise and Demise, Singapore University Press, 1990, pp. 1–5; Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘Socio-political structures and the Southeast Asian ecosystem’, pp. 29–33. 50 K.L. Hutterer, ‘The pre-history of the Asian rain forests’, in J.S. Denslow and C. Padoch (eds), People of the Tropical Rain Forest, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988, pp. 68–69. Hutterer’s view on the dependence of foragers in the tropical rain forests on neighbouring communities of cultivators has since been widely accepted by archaeologists and anthropologists. See T.C. Bailey and T.N. Headland, ‘The tropical rain forest: Is it a productive environment for human foragers?’ Human Ecology, 19, ii (1991) p. 261; S. Guha, Environment and Ethnicity in India, 1200–1991, Cambridge: CUP, 1991, pp. 1–2. 51 The main resins and aromatics exported were benzoin (from Styrax spp.), damar from Shorea, Neobalanocarpus and Hopea and camphor. F.W. Foxworthy, Minor Forest Products of the Malay Peninsula, Malayan Forest Records No. 2, Singapore: Methodist Publishing House, 1921, p. 173; Burkill, Economic Products, I, pp. 765–776. 52 These included eaglewood (gaharu: Aquilaria malaccensis) and sappan (sepang: Caesalpinia sappan). Also important was kayu laka (Dalbergia parviflora), a leguminous climber found throughout the Peninsula and collected especially in Pahang for export to China for manufacturing joss sticks. Preparation involved burying the wood in wet soil until the sapwood rotted, leaving the red heartwood, the colour of clotted blood. The wood was also used for dyes and medical preparations. In 1920, exports from Singapore amounted to nearly 170,000 kg. Foxworthy, Minor Forest Products, p. 173; Burkill, Economic Products, I, pp. 765–766. 53 Stick-lac, known among the Malays as embalau, is collected from the female insect, Laccifer lacca, which produces two useful substances: one, a secretion, the source of commercial shellac, the other, a red pigment from which lac is derived. The latter, an important source of dye, figured prominently in the early trade of the region before the discovery of aniline dyes. Among the trees that the insect inhabits are Acacia and Ficus. E.H. Schafer, ‘Rose wood, dragon’s blood and lac’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 2 (1977) p. 135. Burkill, Economic Products, II, pp. 1311–1315. Personal communication, J. Kathirithamby. 54 P. Wheatley, ‘Geographical notes on some commodities involved in the Sung maritime trade’, JMBRAS, 32, ii (1959) pp. 76, 110; Dunn, Rain-Forest Collectors and Traders, pp.111– 112. 55 Dunn, Rain-Forest Collectors and Traders, pp. 114–119. 56 Ibid., pp. 111–112. 57 J. Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘The eighteenth-century Malay port-polity: Change and adaptation’. Paper presented at the 13th Conference of the International Association of the Historians of Asia, Sophia University, Tokyo, 5–9 Sept. 1994, n.p. 58 The significance of sweet potato to the Besisi of the Peninsula, for example, is manifested in their adoption of the Javanese term, ubi kastela, distinguished from the term keledek used by the Malays for aroids as well. Burkill, Economic Products, II, pp.1267, 2332; Whitmore, Tropical Rain Forests of the Far East, pp. 265–266. 59 Burkill, Economic Products, II, pp. 1434–1438; A. Crosby, The Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1972, pp. 171–174; P. Boomgaard, ‘In the shadow of rice: Roots and tubers in Indonesia, 1500– 1950’, Program in Agrarian Studies Colloquium Series, Yale University, 1998, u.p. 60 Cassava figured as an important part of the diet especially of the Tamiar and the Temuan Proto-Malays. I. Carey, Orang Asli: The Aboriginal Tribes of Peninsular Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1976, pp. 183, 231. 61 K. Pelzer, Pioneer Settlement in the Asiatic Tropics: Studies in Land Utilization and Agricultural Colonization in Southeast Asia, New York: American Geographical Society, 1945, pp. 5–6; P. Kunstadter and E.C. Chapman, ‘Problems of shifting cultivation and economic development in northern Thailand’, in P. Kunstadter, E. C. Chapman and Sanga Sabhasri (eds), Farmers in the Forest: Economic Development and Marginal Agriculture in Northern Thailand, Honolulu: East-West Population Institute, University of Hawaii, 1978, p. 273; D.R. Harris, ‘Agricultural systems and the origin of agriculture’, in P. J. Ucko and G.W. Dimbleby (eds), The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, Chicago: Aldine, 1969, p. 6. 62 Pelzer, Pioneer Settlements in the Asiatic Tropics, pp. 3–4.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 21 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Introduction: Nature, Culture and State

•

21

63 Ibid., p. 19. For more on the structural dissimilarity of swiddens to forests, see W.T. Vickers, ‘Tropical forest mimicry in swiddens: A reassessment of Geertz’s model with Amazonia data’, Human Ecology, 11, i (1983) pp. 35–45. 64 K. Endicott, An Analysis of Malay Magic, Singapore: OUP, 1970, pp. 29–30. 65 E. Long, ‘In a Malayan forest’, British Malaya, 3, ii (1928), p. 45. 66 Rambo, ‘Human ecology of the Orang Asli’, pp. 51–52. 67 Dunn, Rain-Forest Collectors and Traders, pp. 4–5. 68 W. Linehan, A History of Pahang (First published 1936), MBRAS, Reprint No. 2, 1972, p. 139. 69 Among the more isolated Batek Negritos, ‘gabor’ was a variant of the thunder god. K. Endicott, Batek Negrito Religion: The World-View of a Hunting and Gathering People of Peninsular Malaysia, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979, p. 68; H.N. Evans, The Negritos of Malaya, Cambridge: CUP, 1937, pp. 153–171. 70 W.E. Maxwell, ‘Folklore of the Malays’, JSBRAS, 7 (1881) p. 23. 71 W.W. Skeat (Preface, C.O. Blagden), Malay Magic: An Introduction to the Folklore and Popular Religion of the Malay Peninsula, (First published London, 1900), New York: Dover Publications, 1967, p. 205. 72 Skeat, Malay Magic, p. 99. 73 Although the terms pawang and bomoh are often used interchangeably, the bomoh belajar performs the everyday needs of the villager by propitiating spirits, dealing with the supernatural and administering medicines. The pawang, on the other hand, acts as a shaman and engages in séance through a dancer who enters a state of lupa or forgetfulness. Endicott, An Analysis of Malay Magic, pp. 13–14, 20. 74 See Carey, Orang Asli, pp. 247–248. 75 Skeat, Malay Magic, pp. 263–264. 76 R.O. Winstedt, ‘Karamat: Sacred places and persons in Malaya’, JMBRAS, 2, iii (1924) p. 264. 77 Skeat, Malay Magic, pp.202–204. The range of the tualang is limited to the area north of a latitudinal line running from Kuala Lumpur to Kuantan. Whitmore, Tropical Rain Forests of the Far East, p. 221. 78 Skeat, Malay Magic, pp. 214–215. For an account of the ritual and language associated with camphor collection among the Jakun of Johor, see H.W. Lake and H..J. Kelsall, ‘The camphor tree and camphor language of Johore’, JSBRAS, 26 (1894) pp. 35–40. 79 Graham, Kelantan, p. 97. 80 W. Roff (selected and intro.), Stories and Sketches by Sir Frank Swettenham, Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1967, p. 138. 81 Whitmore, Tropical Rain Forests, p. 264. 82 Dunn, Rain-Forest Collectors, p. 80. 83 The gutta-percha trade is one example. See pp. 44–45. 84 ‘Nature’ is rendered in the modern Malay lexicon as ‘alam semula jadi’, literally, ‘the world in its original state’. 85 W. Roff (selected and intro.), Stories by Sir Hugh Clifford, Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1966, p. 170. 86 Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘Hulu-hilir unity and conflict’, pp. 77–96. 87 Roff, Stories by Sir Hugh Clifford, p. 176. 88 Ibid., p. 171. 89 K. Endicott, ‘The effects of slave raiding on the aborigines of the Malay Peninsula’, in A. Reid (ed.), Slavery, Bondage and Dependency in Southeast Asia, St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press, 1983, pp. 222–224. 90 For a summary, see B. Watson Andaya and L. Andaya, A History of Malaysia (First published London: Macmillan, 1982), Second edition, London: Palgrave, 2001, pp. 23–46; 52–53. 91 C.C. Brown (trans.) Sejarah Melayu (Malay Annals), Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1970, pp. 163– 164. 92 Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘Socio-political structures and the Southeast Asian ecosystem’, pp. 28–29. 93 W.E. Maxwell, ‘The law and customs of the Malays with reference to the tenure of land’, JSBRAS, 13 (1884) pp. 77–79. 94 Maxwell, ‘The law and customs of the Malays’, pp. 97–98. 95 Dunn, Rain-Forest Collectors and Traders, pp. 114–16.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 22 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

22

96 Maxwell, ‘The law and customs of the Malays, p. 81. 97 The Semai Senoi distinguished between extant clearings, 1–2 years old; clearings of 2–7 years under thick undergrowth; regenerated forests from between 7–12 years; and mature forests. R. K. Dentan, The Semai: A Nonviolent People of Malaya, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968, p. 41; R.K. Dentan, K. Endicott, A.G. Gomes and M.B. Hooker. Malaysia and the Original People: A Case Study of the Impact of Development on Indigenous Peoples, Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1997, p. 32. 98 See R.N. Hilton, ‘The basic Malay house’, JMBRAS, 29, iii, pp, p. 140; Also, see Sheppard, Mubin, ‘Traditional Malay house forms in Trengganu and Kelantan’, JMBRAS, 42 (1969) ii, pp. 1–9. Nipa grows in brackish water, rumbia in freshwater swamps and bertam mainly on ridges. 99 Burkill, Economic Products, II, pp. 1672–1680. 100 Ibid., II, pp. 1607–1608. 101 According to Burkill, this fern was fashioned into pens as the firmness of the stem allows sharpening to a point of resistance. Burkill, Economic Products, I, pp. 1089–1090. 102 Burkill, Economic Products, II, pp. 1454–1456. 103 Ibid., II, p. 2324. 104 Sometimes the resin is in liquid form. Ibid., II, p. 2265. 105 For a description of the Malay rural landscape, see for example G. Maxwell, In Malay Forests (first published 1907, London), Singapore: Eastern Universities Press, 1960, pp. 40–43. 106 Maxwell, ‘The law and customs of the Malays’, p. 81; Hill, Rice in Malaya, pp. 38–40. 107 Zaharah Mahmud, ‘The traditional Malay ecumene of the Peninsula: A historicalgeographical essay on the position of wet rice’, in Voon Phin Keong and Tunku Shamsul Bahrin (eds), The View From Within: Geographical Essays on Malaysia and Southeast Asia, Special publication of the Journal of Tropical Geography, Kuala Lumpur: Department of Geography, University of Malaya, 1992, pp. 312–314. 108 Whitmore, Tropical Rain Forests of the Far East, pp. 264–265. 109 For an account of the centrality of nature in verse and fables see, R.O. Winstedt, ‘The literature of Malay folk-lore, beginnings, fables, farcical tales, romance’, in R.J. Wilkinson (ed.), Papers on Malay Subjects, First Series, (First published 1907) Kuala Lumpur: FMS Govt. Press, 1923, pp. 12–19. 110 Shahnon Ahmad, No Harvest but a Thorn [Ranjau Sepanjang Jalan] (trans. and intro.) Adibah Amin, Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1972. 111 B. W. Andaya, Perak, the Abode of Grace: A Study of an Eighteenth Century Malay State, Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1979, passim.; D. Lewis, ‘The growth of the country trade in the Straits of Malacca, 1760–1777’, JMBRAS, 43, ii (1970) pp. 114–130; Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘The eighteenth-century Malay port-polity: Change and adaptation’, n.p. 112 Andaya, Perak, pp. 74, 161; R. Bonney, Kedah, 1771–1821, Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1971, p. 10. 113 J. Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘The long eighteenth century and the new age of commerce in the Melaka Straits’, in L. Blussé and F. Gaastra (eds), On the Eighteenth Century as a Category of Asian Trade: Van Leur in Retrospect, Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998, pp. 61–62. 114 D.K. Bassett, ‘Anglo-Dutch relations, 1786–1795’, JMBRAS 62, ii (1989) pp. 1–2; Andaya, Perak, pp. 70, 77, 134; S. Arasaratnam, Merchants, Companies and Commerce on the Coromandel Coast, 1650–1740, Delhi: OUP, 1986, p. 119. 115 Shaharil Talib, ‘The port and polity of Terengganu during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries: Realizing its potential’, in Kathirithamby-Wells and Villiers (eds), Port and Polity: Rise and Demise, p. 219–225. 116 Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘The eighteenth-century Malay port-polity: Change and adaptation’, n.p. 117 See J. Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘The age of transition: The mid-eighteenth to the early nineteenth centuries’, in N. Tarling (ed.), The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia, Cambridge: CUP, 1992, vol. I, pp. 572–619, passim; J. Kathirithamby-Wells; ‘Siak and its changing strategies for survival, c. 1700–1870’, in A. Reid (ed.), The Last Stand of Asian Autonomies, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1997, pp. 210–243. 118 P. Wheatley, The Golden Khersonese, Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press, 1961, pp. 217–220.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 23 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Introduction: Nature, Culture and State

•

23

119 For a valuable account of the early Malay methods of tin extraction, see Andaya, Perak, pp. 395–404. 120 The efficiency of tin extraction was increased by the introduction of the ‘palung’, a wooden structure with sluice-boxes for collecting ore in hydraulic mines. 121 K. Seeland, ‘Indigenous knowledge of trees and forests in non-European societies’, in K. Seeland (ed.), Nature is Culture: Indigenous Knowledge and Socio-Cultural Aspects of Trees and Forests in Non-European Cultures, London: Intermediate Technology Publications, 1997, p. 103. 122 Corner, Wayside Trees of Malaya, I, p. 6; Report on Forest Administration, 1958, Kuala Lumpur: FMS Govt. Press, 1959, p. 35. 123 See G.E. Ironside, ‘Reminiscences of Mahmud’, Malayan Forester, 19, iii (1956) p. 145. 124 Dunn, Rain-Forest Collectors and Traders, p. 61. 125 H.N. Ridley, The Flora of the Malay Peninsula, London: L. Reeve, 1922, p. ix; R.J. Wilkinson, Malay Beliefs, London: Luzac, 1906, p. 60. 126 Referring to the large collection of natural history drawings by non-European artists sponsored by Resident William Farquhar in Melaka (1803–18), the botanist William Jack pronounced them deficient. However, he considered that they would be ‘extremely useful as a guide, by taking the native names … and making enquiries according to the originals’. J. Bastin (intro.), The William Farquhar Collection of Natural History Drawings, vol. I, Singapore: Goh Geok Khim, [2002], p. 23. 127 See Wyatt-Smith, Manual of Malayan Silviculture, vol. , I, pp. III–5/B35-B41. 128 A.R. Wallace, The Malay Archipelago (First published 1869, London), New York: Dover Publications, 1962, pp. 240–241, 244, 252. 129 Ridley, The Flora of the Malay Peninsula, 1922, xvii; M. J. van Steenis-Kruseman, Malaysian Plant Collectors and Collections, in C.G.G.J. van Steenis (ed.), Flora Malesiana, Series I, vol.I, (First published 1950, Jakarta), Koenigstein, West Germany: Koeltz Scientific Books, 1985, pp. 436–437. 130 I.H. Burkill, ‘Botanical collectors, collections and collecting places in the Malay Peninsula, Gardens’ Bulletin, Straits Settlements, 4 , iv & v (1927) pp. 132, 191. 131 Ridley, The Flora of the Malay Peninsula, p. xviii; Van Steenis-Kruseman, Flora Malesiana, I, pp. 214–215. 132 Mohd Nor Jamalul Lail, ‘Mohamed Haniff (1872–1930) of the Penang Botanic Gardens: A biographical tribute to a pioneer botanist’, Folia Malaysiana, 2 (2000) pp. 28–29. 133 Van Steenis-Kruseman, Flora Malesiana, I, p. 390. 134 L. Wray, ‘Journal of a collecting expedition to the mountain of Batang Padang, Perak,’ JSBRAS, 21 (1890) p. 124. 135 Van Steenis-Kruseman, Flora Malesiana, I, p. 516. 136 K.P.V. Menon, History and Development of Forestry and Forest Industries in Malaysia: A Bibliography, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM, 1976, p. 8. 137 Bastin (intro.), The William Farquhar Collection of Natural History Drawings, p. 23. 138 D.S. Jones, ‘The “Waterfall” Botanic Garden on Pulau Pinang: The foundations of the Penang Botanic Gardens, 1884–1910’, JMBRAS, 70, ii (1997) pp. 74–95. 139 Burkill, ‘Botanical collectors, collections and collecting places’, pp. 116, 121, 182–183. 140 Ibid., pp. 133, 182, 141 C.G.G.J. van Steenis (ed.), Flora Malesiana: History of Malaysian Phytography, Jakarta: Noordhoff-Kolft, 1948/49, Ser. I, vol. 42, pp. lxxxii–lxxxiv; Grove, Green Imperialism, pp. 88– 89. 142 The word pawang is associated with skills in resource extraction such as the pawang ikan with fishing, pawang lebah with the gathering of honey and pawang bijih with tin-mining. Mohd Taib Osman, ‘The Traditional Malay Socio-Political World-View’, in Mohd Taib Osman (ed.), Malaysian World-Views, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1985, p. 55. 143 Evans, The Negitos of Malaya, p. 190; Dunn, Rain-Forest Collectors and Traders, p. 79. 144 Skeat and Blagden, Malay Magic, p. 80. 145 J.D. Gimlette (ed.), ‘The Medical Book of Malayan Medicine’, (trans.) Munshi Ismail, with the determination of drugs by I.H. Burkill, Gardens Bulletin, Straits Settlements, 6, iii (1930), p. 325.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 24 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

24

146 I.H. Burkill and Mohamed Haniff, ‘Malay Village Medicine’, The Gardens’ Bulletin, Straits Settlements, 6, ii (1930) p. 165. 147 According to Burkill, Derris elliptica, used as a fish-poison in the Philippines, Borneo and elsewhere, was probably a species imported into the Peninsula. Burkill, Economic Products, I, p. 802. 148 M. Watson, ‘Foreword’, in J. D.Gimlette, A Dictionary of Malayan Medicine, (First Published 1939, London), (ed. and compiled) H.W. Thomson, Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1971, pp. vi–vii. 149 M. Bravo, ‘Ethnological encounters’, in N. Jardine, J.A. Secord and E.C. Spary (eds), Cultures of Natural History, Cambridge: CUP, 1996, pp. 338–347.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 25 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

PART I

Colonial Adventure and Tropical Resource, 1786–1900

KWells_book_1.fm Page 26 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

KWells_book_1.fm Page 27 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

CHAPTER ONE

Tropical Nature and the Imperial Design, 1786–1874 [T]he illustration and improvement of that important branch of the natural history of India, which embraces an object so extensive as the description of the principal parts of the animal kingdom, is worthy of the munificence and liberality of the English East India Company and must necessarily prove an acceptable service to the world. – Marquis of Wellesley1

cientific inquiry and romantic notions of the tropics – the twin and often contradictory features of early European exploration – laid the foundations for economic botany as an integral part of colonial enterprise. Pioneer botanical exploration and crop experimentation in the Straits Settlements (SS)2 carried forward earlier British achievements in Sumatra and Java. They formed part of the expanding network of botanical investigation and exchange, based at the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, under the patronage of Sir Joseph Banks (1743–1820) of the Royal Society. Colonial botanical preservation in experimental and recreational gardens gradually broadened into a concern for forest conservation. Seminal observations made in the 1840s in the Straits Settlements and in the Indian subcontinent, of the impact of forest degradation on climate and agriculture, inspired early efforts towards forest protection for reasons other than wood preservation. In the Straits Settlements, where the potential for sustainable wood production and agricultural activity was limited, forest conservation was less significant in environmental terms than in the Indian sub-continent. But the preservation of species both of immediate and potential non-timber value, actively sponsored by the Director at Kew, bolstered the advancement of floristic sciences in the Colony.

S

PIONEER BOTANICAL EXPLOR ATION

The second half of the eighteenth century saw a resurgence in the demand for Southeast Asian forest and maritime produce to finance the purchase of tea in China. Within the context of this development, British interest in locating a strategic entrepôt in the region to rival Dutch and Malay-Bugis commerce

KWells_book_1.fm Page 28 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

28

resulted in the acquisition, in 1786, of Penang Island (Pulau Pinang). The founding in 1819 of the commercially more successful port at Singapore added to the galaxy of tropical island Edens studding the main maritime routes to the East, at St Helena, St Vincent, Mauritius, Ceylon and Java. Each was a nodal point at which botanical exploration and crop experimentation, spurred by commerce, laid the foundations for Western scientific knowledge of tropical nature and culture.3 Interest in natural history began as a humanist pursuit with its roots in the Renaissance. The Judeo-Christian belief in subordinating and harnessing the beneficence of nature for human progress4 inspired the imperial thrust. Empire related scientific endeavour reached out to other lands and people for the systematic appropriation of the yet undiscovered secrets of nature. 5 G.E. Rumpf, better known as Rumphius (1627–1702), described as the ‘undisputed patriarch’ of Malesian6 natural history, wrote the Herbarium Amboinense partly to discover native herbs which, he believed, God had provided for the cure of local diseases.7 Soon, Linnaean binomial nomenclature assisted the advancement of botanical mapping in the Asian tropics, transcending national loyalties.8 The nineteenth-century Danish botanists, Nathaniel Wallich and Johannes Koenig, were employed in the Calcutta Botanic Gardens, as was their British counterpart, J. Hooper,9 at Buitenzorg (Bogor), Java. In a similar effort to tap into the materia medica of the Archipelago, the American naturalist, Thomas Horsfield, was appointed in 1803 as collector in the Netherlands Indies. 10 British botanical enterprise in the moist tropics of the Peninsula benefited from pioneer exploration and experimentation within a similar environment in west Sumatra. In the context of the early association between herbs, botany and medicine, the appointment at the new Benkulen Presidency (1760–85) of professional botanists, rather than surgeons, attested to the importance of botanical exploration and crop experiment to the Sumatran enterprise. The botanists, Philip and Charles Miller, sons of the curator at the Physic Garden at Chelsea, were appointed successively at Benkulen with the object of realizing the commercial potential of the island’s natural resources. These ambitions matched the conviction of Sir Joseph Banks, the influential patron of the Kew Gardens, and his network of botanists in the Indian subcontinent, that plant exploration and natural science could yield rich dividends for agricultural and medical knowledge.11 Charles Miller, who was curator of the Cambridge Botanic Garden (1762–69) before arriving in Benkulen,12 left an indelible mark as a pioneer botanist. He devoted his attention particularly to Sumatran cassia (from the tree Cinnamomum burmanni), a cheap substitute for the true Ceylon cinnamon (C. zeylanicum), in demand both in the London and Canton markets.13 Botanical investigation and crop experimentation in Benkulen were in advance of the respective initiatives, in 1778 and 1786, of James Anderson at Fort St George (Madras) and Robert Kyd at the Calcutta Botanic Gardens.14 By the turn of the century Benkulen emerged as the centre of British botanical research in Southeast Asia and an integral part of the colonial tropical

KWells_book_1.fm Page 29 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Tropical Nature and the Imperial Design, 1786–1874

•

29

science network centred at the Calcutta Botanic Gardens.15 Benkulen’s botanists, principally Miller and Charles Campbell, provided much field information for William Marsden’s History of Sumatra. Published in 1783,16 this first comprehensive account of the natural history of Sumatra served as a guide for subsequent pioneer activity within a similar habitat in the Peninsula. Marsden’s widespanning interests, that placed natural science within the purview of language, culture and history, reflected an intellectual tradition best exemplified by his contemporary, Sir William Jones of the Supreme Court of Calcutta, polymath and founder of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (1784). It was his belief that the grand objective of society should be the study of Man and Nature. 17 British exploration of the biological wealth of the Malay Archipelago took centre stage under Stamford Raffles whose passion for natural science and pursuit of commercial opportunity were indivisible. Raffles recognized the importance of advancing knowledge through biological exploration and the dissemination of new information within learned circles. During his 1810–11 sojourn in Melaka in preparation for the conquest of Java, he inaugurated a meeting of the Asiatic Society. Subsequently, as Lieutenant Governor of the newly conquered Dutch territories, he lent his patronage to the naturalist Thomas Horsfield, earlier recruited by Batavia. He also breathed new life into the Batavian Society of Arts and Sciences (Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen), founded in 1778.18 Such learned organizations were deemed essential tools for expanding colonial science. At Benkulen, Raffles produced the Malayan Miscellanies. Though only two volumes were ever published, the periodical was envisaged as a ‘means to preserving a record of the many new and interesting facts and particulars which from accident or neglect might otherwise be lost’.19 Raffles’s History of Java draws attention to innumerable tree species, little known in European circles but important in the local economy and with a potential for commercial exploitation. His account also covers various herbs important for medical extracts, dyes, fibre and rope manufacture and fuel. 20 The same attention to indigenous plants of economic value is evident in John Crawfurd’s History of the Indian Archipelago (1820), and John Anderson’s Mission to East Sumatra (1823).21 The twin commitment to science and empire characterized the spirit of the new era. Acquisition of scientific knowledge was recognized as an integral part of colonial enterprise. Individual initiative and enthusiasm often went beyond the call of professional duty. The Malay writer, Munshi Abdullah, describes in his autobiography the energy and care with which Raffles built up his natural history collection.22 With the help of natural scientists, collectors and painters, he systematically amassed a vast array of sample specimens and illustrations. In Benkulen where he was Lieutenant Governor (1818–24), Raffles was assisted by the naturalist and surgeon, Joseph Arnold (1817–18), succeeded on his premature death by William Jack from Calcutta (1818–22). When more than 2,000 natural history specimens meticulously assembled were consumed by the flames

KWells_book_1.fm Page 30 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

30

that engulfed the Fame en route to England, Raffles sensed a deep loss to himself and to science. The choicest, the cream and flower of all my collections, I retained to take under my personal charge … . Among these also was that invaluable, and I may say, superb collection of drawings in natural history, executed under my immediate eye, and intended, with other interesting subjects of natural history, for the museum of the Honble. Court … ; and having been taken from life, and with scientific accuracy, were executed in a style far superior to anything I had seen or heard of in Europe … .23

Banks was impressed by Raffles’s botanical researches and collections, including specimens new to science, sent home preceding the tragedy of the Fame.24 Jack’s own botanical researches in Benkulen, published in the Malayan Miscellanies, were given a wider metropolitan audience when reprinted some years later in the Linnean Transactions by Sir William Hooker, Director of the Royal Botanic Gardens (1841–55).25 No less ardent were Raffles’s zoological studies, with Horsfield’s assistance, answering the anxiety of Governor-General Lord Wellesley (1798–1805) that research into the fauna of the Empire should not lag behind the advances made in botany.26 The live animals Raffles harboured at his country residence at Permatang in Benklulen, as did William Farquhar at Government House, Melaka,27 emulated the efforts of Wellesley, who founded a menagerie in Barrackpore.28 In September 1812, Raffles obtained from Horsfield the first fauna collection for the East India Company Museum in London.29 The importance of applying the fund of European knowledge to pushing the frontiers of exploration in Asia won Bank’s unfailing support and patronage. In an encouraging note to Horsfield, he wrote: Gentlemen who, like you, cultivate science in the wilderness of nature, where books are not to be found, have a right to call upon us inhabitants of libraries for every assistance you stand in need of … .30

Raffles found in William Farquhar’s own enthusiasm for natural science a serious rival. In 1818, when Farquhar was Resident in Melaka, he presented the Asiatic Society of Bengal the first records of the Malayan tapir (badak cipan: Tapirus indicus) and the bearcat (benturung: Arctictis binturong). Having a special interest in ornithology, as attested by the extensive aviaries he kept, Farquhar also dispatched to the Society a paper on several species of hornbills found around Melaka. Farquhar was, furthermore, the first known European to scale Mount Ophir (Gunung Ledang), where he discovered the fern Matonia pectinata. The natural history drawings he assembled included plants and timbers central to the Malay economy. Raffles’s unsuccessful efforts to gain priority of publication over some of Farquhar’s original zoological records 31 are proof of the climate of competitive scientific exploration. The important part that Raffles played in founding the Zoological Society of London in 1929 exemplified the links between knowledge and Empire. He

KWells_book_1.fm Page 31 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Tropical Nature and the Imperial Design, 1786–1874

•

31

regarded the study of animals ‘as a most important branch of natural Theology, teaching by the design and wonderful results of organization, the wisdom and power of the Creator’. Under the influence of Carl Linnaeus’s systematic classification of species, naturalists began the quest to discover and place all things within the realm of God’s grand design.32 These activities contributed to the ultimate Christian logic that all of divine creation could, by dint of industry and ingenuity, be put to the benefit of society. The different races of animals employed in social life, for labour, clothing, food, &c … their improvement, the manner in which their number may be increased, the application of their produce, and its connection with various departments of industry and manufactures, are of the utmost importance to Man in every stage of his existence, but most so in proportion as he advances in wealth, civilization, and refinement.33

Seeking nature’s purpose for humanity enhanced tropical exploration. Nathaniel Wallich, Superintendent of the Calcutta Botanic Gardens (1815–46) who spent his leave in Singapore in 1822, was excited by the diversity of the ‘primeval forest’ that clothed the island. The economic significance of Jack’s discovery of new tree species inspired his notion of a Botanic Garden in Singapore. In addition to the trial planting of cash crops, Wallich recommended the cultivation of wild tree species to meet the expanding needs of carpentry and shipbuilding in the island.34 Land subsequently allocated for the Gardens on Government Hill came under the care of the island’s first surgeon, William Montgomerie. It was the common ambition of naturalists of the era to subdue and harness nature for the perceived ends of human advancement, justifying the imperial advance. Much as Raffles appreciated the wonders of Sumatra’s forests, the tame terraced landscape of Minangkabau, like that in Java, won his admiration. Similarly, his plans for social improvement were directed at bringing ‘the woolly-headed savage who roams his woods’ to the ways of civilization through transforming the tangled greenery into cultivated landscapes. 35 Eden was not the pristine forest that sheltered the noble savage, but Raffles’s civilized homestead amidst it, where dwelt the orang-utan and a variety of other animals. 36 PAR A D I S E RE G A I N E D

By the early nineteenth century the post-Reformation idea of an earthly paradise, divinely created for secular purposes and the progress of humanity, was firmly etched on the European mind. Discovery of the wonders and variety of the tropical world strengthened this conviction. As the early Peninsular naturalist, James Logan, 37 observed: [N]o region on the face of the earth would furnish more novel, splendid, or extraordinary forms than the unexplored islands in the eastern range of the Indian Archipelago. 38

KWells_book_1.fm Page 32 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

32

Yet the perceived ends of progress were in tension with nascent sensitivity to the integrity of tropical nature. Walking through Naning in Negeri Sembilan, Logan noted with envy how marvellously his Besisi (Mah Meri) aboriginal guide was adapted to the forest environment: Nay when I look on my guide, so healthy, cheerful and innocent of all guile, not shrinking from contact with nature and warding her off or training her to his will, and not viewing her merely as an object of contemplation, but taking her as she is in all her wildness, living familiarly with her, with body and mind attuned to her influences and vicissitudes, and having no wants beyond her spontaneous gifts, – my first thought was a doubt whether we did well to estrange ourselves from this primeval wilderness of nature … .39

The steady alienation of humans from nature was thrown into sharp relief as Penang’s forests progressively gave way to neatly cultivated plantations of pepper and nutmeg. In 1805 Penang was raised to Presidency status with the aim of developing its potential as a naval base. The twin factors that influenced the decision were its strategic location to the east of the Bay of Bengal, sheltered from the southwest monsoon, and its potential as a source of naval timber to replace supplies from the lost American colonies. In the search for suitable woods for masts and spars, Captain Norman Macalister, Commander of the Artillery, made an inventory of the useful timbers of Penang. He noted the red poon (bintangur batu: Calophyllum inophyllum) as being the best suited for masts and available in abundance on the island.40 Yet optimism about the suitability of the island as a naval base soon evaporated.41 Though Penang failed to fulfil the role of a naval base and was commercially superseded by Singapore, it continued to play a valuable role as a salubrious tropical island for health, aesthetic pleasure and botanical and agricultural enterprise. In contrast to Benkulen, which took a heavy toll on the lives of its European inhabitants, Penang, with the sanatorium at Mount Hygenia, proved a popular resort for Company servants in the east. Not least was the settlement’s role, especially before the founding of Singapore, in fostering botanical experimentation and agricultural enterprise. The greatest challenge was land clearance, which Penang promoted through free enterprise, discarding Benkulen’s unprofitable forced cultivation system. The island was clothed in thick, humid forests of mature hardwood when first acquired by the country trader, Captain Francis Light. Capital and labour for clearing were fundamental to the introduction of cultivation. As Light recorded in his diary, ‘In cutting the trees our axes, hatchets, and handbolts suffer much; the wood is so exceedingly hard that the tools double like a piece of lead’.42 A team of 52 Malays assisted in the initial clearing.43 As one observer later noted: They [the Malay] are far more expert in the use of the axe and parang, or chopper, than the Chinese, and seem never to tire when so engaged.44

KWells_book_1.fm Page 33 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Tropical Nature and the Imperial Design, 1786–1874

•

33

According to one anecdote, the Malay workforce, spurred by the silver dollars that Light fired from a cannon into the jungle, made progress with pushing back the forest, despite the hard work.45 Using the indigenous method of mass felling, facilitated by the thick growth of lianes, a dozen Malays were able to clear the jungle more rapidly than if the trees were felled singly. Similar local skills in utilizing smooth nibung palm trunks as rollers allowed large timbers to be moved to the coast for constructing ships’ masts.46 Turning the cleared slopes into cultivated landscapes proved equally difficult. As Captain James Low noted.47 There is no parallel in Europe to the labor attending the cultivation of a plantation here, and indeed anywhere near the line. In the course of a couple of months, the best cleared land, if left to itself, will be choked with a rank crop of tall weeds, and wiry, or reedy grasses. No sooner has the forest ‘bowed beneath the sturdy stroke’ of the Malay billiong, or axe, and the stumps been grubbed up and burned, than the lallang grass … strived for mastery. This lallang must be quickly eradicated or it will cost, when the roots have struck deep, 20 dollars an orlong48 to destroy it in light soil, and from 40–80 dollars in stiff clayey soil. To destroy it effectively, not a root or a joint of one must be left. 49

A further problem was disease in the form of malaria. Once cleared, no area was deemed healthy for at least the first three years.50 The tropical paradise that the European colonizer ultimately secured was the product of human endeavour. Some 50 years following the settlement of Penang a visitor to the island marvelled at the transformation. The summits were all gradually cleared; and now houses and spice plantations occupy the place of the useless forest which once covered them.51

Low, contrary to Malthus, argued that nature was munificent and Man should strive ‘to spread himself over the earth so that his numbers may not be diminished’.52 This view well matched the Chinese spirit of enterprise. Raffles was confident that their strong capitalist spirit, industriousness and fecundity would provide the necessary resources of enterprise and manpower to tap the Archipelago’s boundless wealth. When we consider … that they are [a] people who have…diffused the stimulus of their own activity [wherever] they have settled … to create it may be said a second China, the resources and means of this extraordinary Archipelago will appear without limits … . Viewed in this light, Borneo and the Eastern Islands may become to China, what America is already to the nations of Europe.53

Light, with James Scott, another ‘country trader’ and entrepreneur, initiated European agricultural enterprise, assisted by Chinese labour and expertise. A beginning was made with planting pepper, the vines procured from Aceh by the Chinese merchant, Chee Kay.54 The crop that found greater favour was the

KWells_book_1.fm Page 34 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

34

prized nutmeg. Following its historic introduction in Benkulen, outside the Dutch preserve, William Roxburgh initiated its cultivation in the Penang Government Nursery, using plants obtained by his nurseryman, Christopher Smith. 55 The government plantation, abandoned in 1805 just six years after it had been established, was revived only when Wallich visited the island in 1822 and was put under the charge of George Potter.56 All the same, the initial experiment in nutmeg planting helped place private enterprise on a firm footing. 57 David Brown used capital borrowed from Scott and other friends to clear a part of the hillside at Gelugor, about 8 km from George Town, for pepper and nutmeg planting. Alongside this he experimented with new commercial crops such as hemp (rami: Boehmeria nivea)58 and benzoin, exchanging seed and plant samples with Raffles in Benkulen. The Agricultural Society founded by Raffles in Benkulen and the publication of the first volume of the Proceedings by the Baptist missionary, Nathaniel Ward,59 spoke for the era of pioneer botanical exploration, agricultural experimentation and dissemination of related information within the colonial scientific circle.60 To improve knowledge about Penang’s botanical wealth, Raffles arranged for James Potts, a gardener from the London Horticultural Society to collect samples of the island’s edible plants and fruit and urged David Brown to assist the visiting botanist. I take great interest in promoting the objects of the [Horticultural] society and they rely a great deal on the exertions of my friends…The mangosteen, durian and rambutan he will be particularly desirous of obtaining.61

Articles published in the Singapore Chronicle, the officially sponsored pioneer newspaper, reflected growing public interest in adding to the existing list of tradable forest products. In the lead were annatto (kesumba keling: Bixa orellana),62 sago (Metroxylon sagu) and timber such as damar laut merah (Shorea kunstleri).63 Investigations extended to Malay medicinal plants, wood oils and various commercial timbers, principally red poon (Calophyllum inophyllum) and damar minyak (Agathis borneensis).64 Thomas Oxley (see below) collected what information he could, sifting fact from fiction, from the ‘professors of medicine’, generally old women, reluctant to share their knowledge.65 Similarly, Logan reputedly frequented an Indian shop at Sungai Keluang, Johor, to inquire from the owner, the origin and uses of the native products sold. 66 The links between trade, botanical exploration and pioneer agricultural enterprise were inextricably linked, as attested by developments in Penang. As one writer commented, ‘With personal profit as their main incentive these pioneers of Penang took a leap into the unknown when venturing in an undeveloped jungle island’.67 Taking advantage of the government’s rent-free policy to encourage agricultural enterprise, speculators gained perpetual title to large tracts of land.68 Successful pioneers in Penang established the tradition of ‘country estates’, fashionable in Bengal. These humanized landscapes were deemed an unqualified triumph over nature.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 35 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Tropical Nature and the Imperial Design, 1786–1874

•

35

Many of the hills … have, by the stimulus of European industry and capital, been converted from pestiferous jungles into smiling clove plantations, and are ornamented with the seats of the proprietors … [W]hen the visitor gazes upon … the hills rescued from the grasp of the ancient forests, he can hardly conceive that this is the same island which, less than fifty years ago, was overwhelmed with the desolation of unchecked foliage … .69

David Brown’s ‘Glugor House’, nestled salubriously among spice gardens, mainly pepper.70 Unlike the rough wooden structures within the forest clearing which constituted Raffles’s homestead, first at Buitenzorg in Java, 71 and later at Permatang in Benkulen, the landscaped gardens surrounding the well-styled stately homes of Penang emulated the country houses of the English gentry. The residence of Scott, set within the cool hills, with commanding views and conveying imagined reminiscences of home, was dubbed ‘The Highlands of Scotland’.72 These visible changes in the landscape marked the steady transition from a pioneer phase of speculation, hardship and instability, to an era of greater prosperity, permanence, comfort and elegance. The retreating forests, reduced to a mere 20 per cent of the island by the end of the century, 73 made way for the expansion of George Town’s commercial and residential quarters and outlying plantations. Penang’s more successful Asian entrepreneurs shared in the island’s wealth. Representative of the urban elite of the colonial settlement was the Arab merchant-prince, Sayid Hussain al-Aidid, reputedly the island’s richest inhabitant, who lived in enviable style and opulence. 74

4. ‘Glugor House’ and spice plantations, Penang, c. 1820. Painting by Capt. Robert Smith.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 36 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

36

Indeed, in Penang, the British carved out what came close to the nineteenthcentury ideal of a tropical paradise. The eye after passing over the abrupt side of the mountain clothed with a thick and impenetrable forest of gigantic trees rests delighted on the beautiful plain, stretching from its border to the sea. The charming valley is thickly studded with handsome villas and picturesque bungalows and intersected with pleasant carriage roads, and meandering streams issuing from the mountain making a reluctant passage to the sea. The whole is in a state of high cultivation. Gardens, producing the most delicious fruit, are kept in the best order.75 TAMING THE WILDER NESS

With the death of Banks in 1820, botanical research in Penang, as elsewhere in the colonies, came to an abrupt halt. The Penang Government Nursery and the Singapore Botanical Gardens at Fort Canning were abolished successively in 1828 and 1829, and in 1830 the Calcutta Botanic Gardens were retrenched. 76 Scientific inquiry and experimentation was left to the initiative entirely of private individuals. In Singapore, not until the 1880s was official sponsorship revived but, in the interim, a number of influential members of the local community founded, in 1837, the Agricultural and Horticultural Society. Disbanded in 1846, it was replaced in 1860 by the Agri-Horticultural Society, of which Governor Orfeur Cavenagh was Chairman. Its Gardens, located at the present site in Tanglin, were placed under the part-time supervision of David Niven, a nutmeg planter.77 Besides compiling and disseminating information on new crops, both Societies engaged in the experimental planting of crops, particularly after the nutmeg blight in the 1860s ended cultivation of the crop. 78 Following the pioneer era of botanical research sponsored by Banks, economic botany was left to the initiative of agricultural entrepreneurs, among whom were East India Company surgeons. Surgeon Montgomerie, and his successor, T. Oxley (1846–57), were among a number of European residents in Singapore who owned plantations. Dedicated to crop experimentation, their country estates doubled as aesthetic urban gardens.79 Robert Little, a private medical practitioner and founder of the Presbyterian community in Singapore, commented on the fashion amongst Europeans to plant gardens. These helped fulfil the human instinct ‘to possess a little land to lay it out in flowers or trees, according to our several tastes’. The gardens, oases of space and fresh air within the urban environment, offered opportunity for physical exercise and mental relief from the pressure of commercial life. By the same token, the spice garden represented a veritable place of repose, away from the city’s unflushed drains and insalubrious canals: [W]ill it then be wondered at that the business man is ravished with the sight of the deep green jungle, or wakens in the morning after a most unusually refreshing night’s repose, believing himself in the land of his

KWells_book_1.fm Page 37 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Tropical Nature and the Imperial Design, 1786–1874

•

37

youth, when no heat fevered his blood, but the cool winds as they soughed through the trees…soothed him to sleep.80

Poised on a frontier economy, the opportunity for combining pleasure with profit was hardly missed by the business community. [T]he formation of a plantation is a profitable investment of our spare cash, to which reason may be ascribed the pretty yet expensive plantations which adorn our hills, and which will ere long change this island from a jungle to a garden.81

The sculptured green spaces within the city served essentially the same purpose as the patchwork of wild orchards and informal gardens within the sprawl of pre-European Southeast Asian commercial centres. They reconciled humanity’s pursuit of material wealth with aesthetic fulfilment. The similarities nevertheless were deceptive. Systematic clearance for planned and ordered habitation under European settlement presaged the depletion and extinction of many native trees and plants.82 In particular, the expansion of capital-backed cash cropping into the urban outskirts and beyond signalled the move from sustainable to unstable regimes of land use, epitomized by Chinese shifting cultivation. Unlike the discreetly weeded Malay and aboriginal swiddens, planted with a variety of crops and based on long rotational cycles, Chinese monocultivation of pepper and gambier in assiduously weeded plantations rapidly exhausted the soil. Once abandoned, these old plantations were invaded by the pernicious lalang (Imperata cylindrica). While it made economic sense to Chinese smallholders to clear new land once the old plantations were exhausted, European entrepreneurs remonstrated at the expense involved in reclaiming such degraded land for estate agriculture. The profligacy of land use by Chinese shifting cultivators derived from specific horticultural practices, adapted to maximizing productivity through the complementary cultivation of pepper and gambier. In preparing a plot of primary forest for cultivation, great care was taken in conserving the felled timber for the later process of boiling the leaves for gambier production, using the residual greenery for manuring the pepper vines. Gambier (Uncaria gambir) cultivation was ideally adapted to the damp, sheltered forest frontier, which was steadily pushed back by the need for firewood for processing the leaves and fresh soils for new plantations.83 Given the initial abundance of forest land and the rudimentary land administration, there was little incentive for the Chinese planter to abandon opportunistic land exploitation.84 According to one observer, the planter moved like the locust, leaving a trail of desolation behind him.85 It was estimated that a block of forest, roughly equal in size to the area under cultivation, was required to provide fuel, which meant that in Singapore accessible stocks were generally depleted by the end of the first 15–25-year cycle of shifting cultivation.86 On average, for every hectare of pepper or gambier planted, roughly two hectares of land were rendered useless.87

KWells_book_1.fm Page 38 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

38

The damage inflicted on the landscape earned Chinese shifting cultivators the reputation of ‘evildoers rather than doers of good to the land’.88 In Singapore, speculation with nutmeg, pepper, coffee and gambier planting, based on the selection of wooded areas with enriched soils, left a patchwork of scrub (belukar) and lalang across the island. By the 1840s, the scarcity of land for new plantations and wood for gambier production accelerated the pace of Chinese migration across the Straits to Johor. With increased demand for gambier following rising prices after the mid-century, cultivation in Johor became widespread and continued into the early twentieth century.89 Organized as the ‘kanchu system’90 under the patronage of Johor’s ruler, Temenggung Ibrahim (1841–61), gambier and pepper cultivation spread rapidly up once-forested river valleys. By the 1860s there were around 1,200 plantations in Johor, which soon left vast swaths of degraded land.91 More inimical to soils than pepper and gambier cultivation was cassava planting,92 widespread in Melaka and, later, in Negeri Sembilan.93 Cultivated with modest capital outlay and yielding easy returns if planted on virgin soils, it proved immediately attractive when demand rose in the world market. Moreover, the widespread consumption of pork among the Chinese mining communities meant that pig rearing could profitably be combined with cassava growing and starch production, the waste from the factories providing excellent fodder. Beginning with just 400 ha in 1861, the area under cassava increased tenfold within a decade. By 1882, some 37,600 ha were brought under cultivation, covering an approximately 20 km radius from Melaka. The practice of replanting on fresh soils about every 5 years, combined with timber felling for fuelling the factories, contributed to a ‘scorched earth’ scenario.94 Associated with the attrition of forests was the implied threat to wildlife, the abundance and diversity of which were attested by the entomological observations of Alfred Russel Wallace. During his mid-nineteenth century excursions in Singapore he collected, within just one square mile, no less than 700 species – a large proportion of them new to science.95 Clearance for cultivation and settlement went hand-in-hand with the extermination of wildlife to secure safety for life and property. Though human habitation generally discouraged the elephant and rhinoceros, Chinese woodcutters and gambier and pepper planters living in isolated clearings in the forest were regular victims of tigers. In 1840, an estimated total of 40 tigers on the island are reported to have claimed an average of one inhabitant per month,96 the number rising 20 years later, to an average of one per day.97 These accounts, though anecdotal, conveyed the seriousness of the tiger menace, triggered by human intervention. Tigers, hardly sighted for many years after Singapore was first settled, subsequently proliferated with the rapid conversion of forests to scrub and herbivorous plants attractive to pig and deer.98 Retaliatory hunting was spurred by European sporting instincts and the commercial value of prized tiger parts in Chinese medicine shops. Wounded tigers turned man-eaters generated a vicious cycle of killing that led to their ultimate extermination in Singapore.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 39 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Tropical Nature and the Imperial Design, 1786–1874

•

39

THE TUR NING TIDE

As profligacy through burning, clearing and cutting depleted the forest, the rising demand for wood in Singapore, commensurate with the rapidly increasing population, was reflected in the expansion of the wood industry.99 Wood depletion by the middle decades of the century led to a brisk trade in timber imports from Johor. As J. Cameron recorded, at certain times of the year, rafts of an average 150–180 m long and 18–20 m broad, comprising some 2,000 newly cut logs bound together with rattan, were floated to sawmills in Singapore, with entire families aboard.100 Apart from the utilitarian concerns of wood depletion, the astonishing pace at which settlement and agriculture made inroads into the forest evoked nostalgia. Singapore, when first occupied, was ‘covered with one universal and mighty forest’ but, soon, ‘[w]hole hills [were] tipped into the sea, and the line of the foreshore straightened’ to make way for settlement.101 Within a few years, the hilltops were bare.102 Some decades on, the scars of development that set a similarly deep imprint on Penang’s landscape elicited strong sentiments. J.T. Thomson, lured to the island by Robert Smith’s idyllic early painting of Penang he had seen at Berwickshire, was deeply disappointed. On approaching the island shores he admitted to seeing less than ‘the Elysium of his boyhood dreams’. Deep disappointment laid its heavy load on my spirits. The highlands loomed heavy and shapeless; their primeval forests have been destroyed, and are giving place to mangy patches of scrub and bare stones. The shores were muddy and fringed with scrubby mangroves. 103

It was in the yet unspoilt upper reaches of the Kesang valley, on the slopes of Mount Ophir (Gunung Ledang) in Johor, that Thomson later realized his vision of the tropics. Here the scenery was magnificent, wild, and rugged. The forest trees, reaching two hundred feet in height, rose out of the foreground, in most fantastic order, and huge creepers and orchideous plants hung to them in graceful festoons. Such scenery as this presented many a study for the admirer of nature.104

Experience of the moist tropics aroused new sensibilities. Colonel James Low, who made the first in-depth study of agricultural conditions in the Straits Settlements,105 commented on the poor soils relative to the luxuriant vegetation they supported. Although the hills and ridges have doubtless for ages been clothed in tall forest with a close underwood, yet there is hardly any vegetable soil beyond a few inches in depth to be found in any of them. Where such has been formed, the heavy rains have doubtless washed it down to the swamps.106

Low attributed erosion of the topsoil to climate, aggravated by shifting cultivation, a condition that could be arrested, he observed, by encouraging the

KWells_book_1.fm Page 40 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

40

regeneration of grass.107 Paddy cultivation was recognized, unreservedly, as the ideal. ‘An extensive paddy field has a beautiful appearance, and keeps the air in a pure state, for which reason it should be preferred to other kinds of culture …’, 108 observed the Melaka planter, F.L. Baumgarten. The ‘sterile’ soil, though fundamentally unsuited to monocultivation of cash crops, was noted to be more partial to the planting of a mix of tropical fruit and vegetable. Accurately linking the luxuriant vegetation in the Peninsula to climate rather than soil, Crawfurd observed that, though the poorest soils supported stupendous trees, only the richest were congenial to the cultivation of the herbaceous plants to serve the needs of a settled populace.109 During the course of the nineteenth century, European cultivators became aware of the importance of adapting land use to conditions in the moist tropics. In the 400-year-old city of Melaka, European gardens and plantations in the countryside blended in with the traditional landscape. Upon successive failure with coffee, pepper and sugar,110 Baumgarten, turned for clues to native agriculture. Writing in the Journal of the Indian Archipelago, he advised selective imitation of the Malay traditional landscape, characterized by productive orchards planted with sturdy indigenous species such as coconut, betelnut and swamp sago. Planters were encouraged to emulate Malay practices of land conversion and cultivation. Kampung dwellers, Baumgarten noted, left the stumps in the course of thinning out the forest, and weeded their gardens only after the plants came to maturity. This, it was suggested, besides protecting the soil, would lend a picturesque aspect.111 His thinking represented a significant advance in tropical agriculture since the era of clean weeding, mandatory under the Company’s forced cultivation system at Benkulen.112 THE BEG I NNING S OF COLONIAL CONSER VATION

Observations in the Peninsula, linking erosion with the inimical effects of removing vegetation cover, reinforced concerns of an earlier provenance in India. Notwithstanding the association of deforestation with desiccation by surgeons in India, the Company’s response was tardy. Steps taken in 1800 to arrest teak depletion in Malabar and Mysore were aborted when the post of conservator was abolished three years later.113 Indeed, Alexander von Humboldt’s theory linking deforestation and climate, based on his South American travels, had little impact initially on Indian affairs until interpreted, in 1837, in the Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal by J.B. Boussingault, a French agricultural chemist. The attention drawn by Humbold to forest clearance and consequent erosion overlapped observations of a similar phenomenon by Company surgeons in famine-stricken areas of the subcontinent. Contributing to the critique of the impact of deforestation on landscape were observations of the processes of land degradation in the Malay Peninsula. In 1839, T.J. Newbold, who had earlier noted the deleterious effects of erosion in the Straits Settlements, published an article in the newly founded Madras Journal of Literature and Sciences, in which

KWells_book_1.fm Page 41 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Tropical Nature and the Imperial Design, 1786–1874

•

41

he attributed to deforestation the sand dune formations and siltation in the Hoogri River valley, lying between Bellary and Bangalore. This observation, as Richard Grove has pointed out, was crucial to understanding the impact of forest loss on climate and, in turn, the rural economy.114 During 1837–39 when serious famine struck Madras, the increasing conviction among Company surgeons about the links between deforestation and desiccation rapidly gained currency in official circles. Backed by William Hooker at Kew, the medical establishment in India found itself at the helm of the movement for conservancy.115 A special committee of the British Association of the Advancement of Science concluded at a meeting in 1852 chaired by H. Cleghorn, that ‘conservation of forests on hill catchments is essential for the agricultural well-being of plains below’. 116 Where human exigencies, whether for subsistence or health require the destruction of forests, let them be destroyed; but where neither life nor health is concerned, then let a wise system of preservation be introduced and acted upon.117

Similar ideas of the effects of deforestation influenced naturalists in the Straits Settlements, who believed the advancement of tropical science to be pivotal to improving British commerce. Benefiting from information disseminated via learned journals and associations such as the influential Royal Society and Asiatic Society of Bengal, they were able to relate local research and observation on conditions of climate and geography to metropolitan and Indian intellectual developments. The deforestation crisis in India drew the attention of J.R. Logan to similar problems in the Straits Settlements. In the same year that the Company surgeon, Alexander Gibson, submitted his 1846 report to the Directors, Logan delivered an influential lecture to the Asiatic Society of Bengal on ‘The probable effects on the climate of Pinang of the continued destruction of its hill jungles’, later published in the Journal of the Indian Archipelago118 Logan, who began his career as an indigo planter in Bengal, had an affinity with the Scottish botanical fraternity in India, which extended its arm into the Malay Peninsula. Establishing himself in Singapore where he practised law, he pursued a variety of interests, including geology, physical geography and ethnography. In his commitment to advancing knowledge of the Malay world, he founded the Journal of the Indian Archipelago (1847–58) and edited the Penang Gazette.119 Logan’s observations of the effects of tropical climate, especially rainfall, on landscape in the Malay Peninsula corroborated evidence in India. While travelling in Rembau, Negeri Sembilan, Logan observed the violence of tropical rainstorms. There were ‘[h]ere and there deep hollows from the side of which the soil had been violently torn off and swept off ’.120 He noted erosion on the summits and slopes of Penang Hill, induced by Chinese shifting cultivation and charcoal burning, and warned that such activity, if unarrested, could have wide environmental repercussions. Influenced by the thinking of Humboldt and Boussingault, he shared the conviction of botanists in India and

KWells_book_1.fm Page 42 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

42

natural scientists in the Netherlands Indies, that arbitrary forest felling was already beginning to affect climate.121 Citing desiccation as a consequence of deforestation in Greece, the Cape Verde Islands and, more recently, in large areas in India, he called for a stop to the ‘war with nature’ to avert calamity in Penang.122 Logan’s ideas overturned conventional notions about the adverse influence of forests on health and climate. A typical view had been the assumption by P.J. Begbie of the Madras artillery that ‘a heaviness in the atmosphere, generated perhaps by the undrained marshes, and luxuriant jungle’, rendered Penang’s climate inferior to that of Singapore and Melaka, where much of the forest had been cleared.123 By contrast, Logan stressed the crucial role played by forests for condensation, rainfall and moisture retention, and called for appropriate legal and administrative measures for their protection, following the example of Germany and France. 124 The desiccation theories propounded by naturalists in the tropics were reinforced by the concerns of the geographer and conservationist George Perkins Marsh over forest depletion in the USA.125 In 1847, a year following Logan’s lecture, he drew the attention of farmers in Vermont to land degradation in New England. Too much of Vermont had already been cleared; sun and wind scorched the treeless slopes, springs vanished, droughts alternated with floods. Rains and melting snows, formerly absorbed by forest and undergrowth, now ‘flow swiftly over the smooth ground … fill every ravine with a torrent and convert every river into an ocean …’ .126

Marsh, who laid the ground for the cross-fertilization of emerging European and North American environmental thought, expressed in his seminal work, Man and Nature (1864), forebodings of a growing disequilibrium in the natural order.127 Earlier concepts of nature as robust and permanent rapidly gave way to the reverse notion of its vulnerability.128 Logan’s lecture on degradation of Penang Hill placed the Peninsula on the broader canvass of the conservation debate and contributed to influencing the Directors, already under pressure from scientific circles.129 The special Committee appointed under Cleghorn to consider the physical and economic impact of tropical forest loss acknowledged the non-experimental nature of the evidence presented but was persuaded by ample observational data, including Logan’s on Penang. On the basis of these submissions, the Committee recommended protection of the Indian forests currently under threat. It proposed rationalized management of productive forests and protection of non-productive but environmentally sensitive areas.130 The recommendations established the cardinal principles of colonial forestry, articulated in Lord Dalhousie’s famous 1855 memorandum. Pointing out the importance of forests for promoting ‘healthiness and fertility’, Dalhousie emphasized conservancy as a long-term investment:

KWells_book_1.fm Page 43 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Tropical Nature and the Imperial Design, 1786–1874

•

43

Few of us will gather the fruit where now we plant. But if we succeed in framing this design and advance it in some degree towards completion, we may at least enjoy the satisfaction of feeling that we shall leave behind us an heritage for which posterity will be grateful.131

Centralized forest control, as enunciated by the memorandum, was tantamount to state intervention in environmental management and represented a landmark in colonial history.132 Dalhousie’s memorandum paved the way for the Indian Forest Act of 1865, introducing government management and exploitation of the forests, under the German forester, Dietrich Brandis, as Inspector-General. By the time a centralized Indian Forest Service was established, deforestation was no longer regarded in terms of timber depletion alone but from the wider perspective of its profound social and economic implications. As Secretary of State Charles Wood (1859–67) wrote: [T]he results have shown themselves, not only in the dearth and consequent high price of timber, but very often in the deterioration of climate, and in the barrenness of the land formerly culturable, if not fertile, situated at the base of hills, when these have been stripped of the forests which clothed them, condensed the vapours into rain, and gave protection to the country below them.133

Scientific forestry was soon acknowledged as integral to safeguarding imperial interests. The policy change in the subcontinent paralleled developments in hydrological management in the Netherlands Indies. Though up until then forestry had been preoccupied almost exclusively with teak preservation and regeneration in Java, increasing hill deforestation, which posed the double-edged problem of oscillating drought and flood, effected a radical change in policy. 134 In 1865, the first comprehensive forest laws for environmental protection were passed and provided for the preservation of the hitherto neglected non-teak forests (wildhoutbossen) of the Outer Islands.135 In the Straits Settlements as well, Governor W.J. Butterworth (1843–55) responded to Logan’s arguments by prohibiting further destruction of hill forests.136 But without a forest service and appropriate laws, the policy fell short of proper enforcement. Contrary to Logan’s hopes, the Company’s laissez-faire policy – rapidly giving way in India to an interventionist stance – remained dominant in the Straits Settlements. Conservation initiatives were largely tentative and government interest in the protection of hydrological regimes related primarily to agriculture, as evident in Newbold’s Political and Statistical Account of the British Settlements in the Straits of Malacca.137 It was considered the responsibility of the agriculturalists themselves to take appropriate measures to protect the landscape.138 In reality, such initiatives were unlikely among the community of agricultural speculators, with little vested interest in the long-term implications of deforestation.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 44 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

44

New theories reversing earlier beliefs about the relation between forests, climate and health did not discourage colonial agricultural clearance in the Peninsula. ‘It has been observed that humid air, charged with miasmata, is deprived of them in passing through the forest’, wrote the French geographer Becquerel. 139 Indeed, this view, attributing tropical fevers to the clearance, rather than the presence of forests, won support among planters such as Ambrose Rathborne. In these parts nature always revenges herself for being interfered with. Fever-laden vapours rise from the land despoiled of its trees, and the soil disturbed by digging emits noxious gases, and these reign paramount until a new growth has taken the place of the one destroyed, or time and exposure have weakened the banefulness of the fumes. 140

Nevertheless, particularly after the introduction of rubber in the early twentieth century, the risk to health posed by forest clearance was accepted as the inevitable price to pay for profitable enterprise. Plantation speculators, in common with policy makers, lived in the hope that once the forests were successfully cleared and cultivation established, the hazards of ill health and soil erosion would diminish.141 In the meantime, forest attrition continued apace. NEW O PPOR TUNITIES, NEW VALUES

Less evident to the eye than the impacts of forest conversion for agriculture were the inroads of non-timber forest produce exploitation under the stimulus of commercial growth. Malays living in the proximity of the British settlements supplied them with a wide range of non-timber forest products including woodoil, waxes, sappan wood, dammar and rattan.142 Peninsular resources found an especially lucrative market in Singapore, the regional emporium par excellence. Large numbers of Malays who abandoned the high seas in the face of expanding European maritime power, eked out new livelihoods, supplementing subsistence cultivation with trade in forest produce. In Muar, once a prosperous hinterland of the Johor-Riau Empire and the remaining power base of Sultan Husain, the decline of agriculture gave way to the resurgence of forest produce extraction. The area, practically a wilderness with a sparse population, was a rich source of ebony, wax, eaglewood, benzoin, camphor and dammar.143 Trade revenues and the royal monopoly over ivory and bezoar (guliga), prized for its magical properties, constituted a vital portion of the ruler’s income.144 Elsewhere in Johor, more ambitious efforts were made by the energetic Temenggung Ibrahim to increase the flow of trade to Singapore. As an initial step towards expanding the trade, he extended south Johor’s labour force. In addition to the existing aboriginal Benua-Jakun population, the ruler resettled the Biduanda Kallang from Singapore Island in Pulai, and the Orang Sabimba (Senimba) – a forest people from Batam Island – along the Teberau River. 145 Like the Benua-Jakun, the newly settled tribes remained administratively autonomous under their own headmen (penghulu), but were placed under the

KWells_book_1.fm Page 45 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Tropical Nature and the Imperial Design, 1786–1874

•

45

commercial jurisdiction of the Temenggung’s representatives (jenang). These tribes exchanged forest produce for cloth, iron tools, tobacco, rice, sugar and other necessities. With trade expansion, Johor’s aboriginal tribes became virtual serfs of the Temenggung. By placing jenang strategically at river junctions and sealing independent lines of trade, he ‘effectively locked them up in the jungles’, prohibiting trade with others. The Orang Sabimba were advanced salt, cloth and rice for the delivery of dammar, gaharu,146 ebony (kayu arang: Diospyros maingayi), rattan and wax. Due partly to the slow process of forest produce extraction, they remained in permanent bondage. Their plight was aggravated by the fraudulence of traders who tampered with the scales and adopted unfair prices. Reputedly, traders in Johor made a profit of anything up to 400 per cent on food and manufactures advanced to forest dwellers and a further 100 per cent on the resale of forest produce in Singapore. Summing-up the plight of the forest people Logan wrote: Compared with the labour which the acquisition of the necessities of life costs them, that which is required to obtain a few luxuries and conveniences to which they are now habituated, is excessive. Instead of a scanty and irregular supply of clothing and other articles, it should suffice to raise them to a condition of greater plenty and comfort than the Malays themselves have attained, because their industry is greater. 147

The general upsurge in forest produce extraction came to a head with Singapore’s emergence as the fulcrum for the gutta-percha (getah perca) trade. The latex was derived from several species of taban (Palaquium spp.), the best quality from P. gutta.148 The taban tree, unlike most other species in the tropical rain forests, grows in pure but widely dispersed stands, requiring extensive search by a large workforce. Equally arduous was the method of extraction. Mature trees were felled, the bark of the trunk ringed at 30–45 cm intervals and the sap from the incisions collected in coconut shells before it was boiled to the right consistency.149 Though a large number of Malays and Chinese were engaged in supervising and marketing the product, the best collectors were the Orang Asli, skilled both at locating and tapping Palaquium. The plastic properties of the getah (rubber) exuded by the Palaquium was long known to the Proto-Malays of Johor, who ate the seeds of the tree and moulded the coagulated latex into handles for chopping knives, swords and krises. Their ingenuity led to the production of riding whips to meet the equestrian pursuits of Singapore’s European community. First introduced in 1842 and sold in bundles of twenty, the whips proved instantly popular and even found their way to London’s Oxford Street.150 Encouraged by their popularity, the Malays produced a wide variety of other goods for domestic use, including buckets, basins, and jugs.151 Appropriate to the medical-botanical tradition of the East India Company, pioneer investigation into gutta-percha’s economic potential was investigated by

KWells_book_1.fm Page 46 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

46

Singapore’s surgeons. Montgomerie observed that the soft, elastic properties of gutta-percha were ideally suited for the manufacture of surgical instruments, gloves, embossed maps and raised printing for the blind. The information sent to the Bengal Medical Board, circulated though the Calcutta Englishman, raised great excitement. However, it was Joze d’Almeida, the eminent Singapore surgeon and businessman, who was credited with introducing the wonder substance to the scientific world.152 Once the potential uses of gutta-percha were ascertained, attention turned to research on its production, processing and manufacturing. Following Montgomerie’s lead on the use of gutta-percha for medical purposes, Oxley concentrated on investigating its adhesive properties for plastering fractures and, above all, for insulating vaccine virus in the form of a capsule. Given that until then it was impossible to preserve vaccine virus even for a few days, the discovery marked a milestone in medical science. As Oxley observed: Since writing the foregoing observations I have had an official intimation from Penang of the vaccine virus transmitted in the Gutta capsules having been received in good order, and of its having succeeded most satisfactorily. I have also opened a capsule containing a vaccine crust that had been kept here for a month, and it also seems to have lost none of its efficacy, as the case inoculated has taken. 153

Of particular significance to the interests of Empire was the discovery that the latex from gutta-percha, the best-known non-conductor of heat and electricity, was suitable for insulating underground telegraphic cables. Unlike the low-bulk, high-value forest exudates and scented woods traditionally exported to meet religious ritual and pharmaceutical uses, the gutta-percha trade marked the region’s entry into the new industrial age of bulk extraction. The indigenous Benua-Jakun, like other Orang Asli, had traditionally tapped various commercial gums and resins sustainably; but the new wave of gutta-percha collection, spurred by the lucrative market, broke free of past restraints on extraction.154 Tempted by the goods and cash advanced by middlemen, collectors foraged indiscriminately, often beyond their own territorial orbits of customary claims and vested interest. Avoiding the arduous process of systematic tapping, which involved making cuts at regular incisions along the bole and the branches, collectors resorted to extracting a one-off high yield by felling the tree and then incising the bark.155 This method, besides leaving a large part of the rubber untapped in the bark, destroyed whole stands of taban.156 Commenting on the gutta-percha craze that gripped the populace, Logan wrote: ‘Menebang [felling of the taban] became the cry amongst all their land, river and sea tribes’.157 Even before gutta-percha’s economic uses had been fully explored the demand for it soared in Singapore. News of its value spread rapidly through the region, drawing in produce from the Riau-Lingga Archipelago, east Sumatra and Borneo. In the Peninsula, knowledge of the commercial value of gutta-percha soon reached

KWells_book_1.fm Page 47 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Tropical Nature and the Imperial Design, 1786–1874

•

47

Perak and Kedah. By the mid-century, collection in Perak gained momentum among the relatively large Senoi population (see Map 3, p. 132). Gutta-percha, along with rattan, nipa and gaharu wood, were collected under concessions granted by the ruler. In Pahang, extraction was monopolized by the Bendahara (Prime Minister), who supplied the ruler of Johor.158 Alerted to the value of gutta-percha by Ker Rawson and Co.’s initial shipment to Britain from Singapore, Temenggung Ibrahim took direct control of the trade in Johor. By offering good prices, effectively he gained a monopoly. Whole tribes, including the Sabimba transported from Batam Island, were engaged for the collection.159 In the manner of the founders of the early Malay states, the Temenggung employed armed maritime forces to guard strategic points around the coast and outside Singapore harbour to intercept competitors. 160 The trade in forest products during the new industrial age offered the ruler of Johor, as indeed other rulers in the Peninsula, opportunity for wealth accumulation. The transformation of the Temenggung’s once unimpressive encampment at Teluk Belangah into a modern European-style complex attested to the new material wealth accrued from trade in forest produce. According to the Singapore Free Press: The money, which has flowed so copiously into the [Teluk Belangah] coffers, through the successful dealings of His Highness and his followers in the gutta trade, has been more judiciously applied than is generally the case when Malays become possessed of a little cash, and instead of being expended on evanescent shows and spectacles, or squandered at the gambling-table or cock-pit, it has been laid out in improving the outward appearance of [Teluk Belangah]. His Highness has built for himself several extremely neat houses and [balai] in the European style, which are gay with green and white paint, and many of his followers have done the same, their smart, green venetianed, tile-roofed houses, being an extreme contrast to the rude huts in which they formerly were content to live.161

The gutta-percha story summed up the responsiveness of forest produce collectors and traders to capital enterprise and global trade. Produce coming to Singapore from the Peninsular States of Johor, Pahang and Negeri Sembilan, as well as from Borneo and Sumatra, contributed to a dramatic increase in exports from just over 100 kg in 1845 to 560,000 kg by 1847, with more than a fourfold rise in price.162 Out of about 189,200 kg officially imported into Singapore over six months during January–July 1847, some 150,000 kg derived from the Peninsula.163 This suggests an annual extraction of about 300,000 kg from the Peninsula. Based on Oxley’s calculation that an average of 10 trees were destroyed in the process of extracting 60.4 kg of gutta-percha, 164 the Peninsula’s estimated production of about 300,000 kg in 1847165 represented the felling of some 50,000 trees during the course of a single year. For the region as a whole, Logan calculated that Singapore’s imports over a three-and-a-half-year period from the commencement of the gutta-percha trade would have involved the

KWells_book_1.fm Page 48 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

48

destruction of about 270,000 trees. In 1848, due to oversupply, the price temporarily plummeted to an all-time low of $0.21 per kg. But corresponding depletion of accessible sources subsequently resulted in an unprecedented price rise to $1 per kg in 1853.166 During the course of 1847–57, Singapore rapidly lost its own taban stands and saw diminishing imports from Johor. Increasingly, the island was supplied by foraging expeditions that branched out into the Archipelago and the northern Peninsula.167 TOW ARDS FOREST R Y

The widespread felling of taban and its consequent depletion came at a time when the Indian government was turning its attention to conservancy. In 1862, preceding the 1865 Indian Forestry Act, the Secretary of State instructed the Governor-General to undertake an appraisal of the forests in the Straits Settlements.168 There was no immediate action. But the transfer in 1867 of the Straits Settlements from the Indian administration to the Crown shaped new developments in the field of natural science. In particular, Joseph Hooker (1855–85), who succeeded his father, Sir William as Director at Kew, 169 found greater scope for exerting a more direct influence on Peninsular affairs through the Colonial Office. Joseph Hooker’s familiarity with the vapour-laden clouds that hung over the eastern Himalayan forests and their importance to precipitation in the plains below informed his 1874 circular to the colonies, inviting reportage on deforestation and climate.170 Interest in forest preservation was symptomatic of the new burst of imperial botanical exploration spurred by the spread of Linnean scientific nomenclature and the enthusiasm and influence of Kew’s Directors both at home and in the colonies. Hooker found a keen ally in Andrew Clarke, Governor in Singapore (1873–75), who clearly intended that economic botany should follow in the rearguard of the quest for tin. In April 1874, hardly three months after the Pangkor Treaty with Perak, inaugurating the British thrust into the Malay States, he pressed Lord Carnarvon, Secretary of State for the Colonies and a keen botanist and collector, for the services of a ‘Scientific Botanist’. The measure he deemed valuable, … not only on account of the interesting discoveries in Botany that might ensue, but also because our commercial interests might be considerably developed were the investigation to result in the economy or amelioration of any of the vegetable products of the Tropical world. 171

The outcome was the appointment in 1875 of the Kew-trained Henry Murton to superintend the Singapore Gardens in Tanglin, for the purpose of public recreation and crop experimentation.172 Clarke also helped establish and expand a herbarium in Singapore.173 The government in Singapore was equally responsive to Hooker’s engagement with forest conservation. A report by Major J.F.A. McNair, the Colony’s engineer, on the forests of the Strait Settlements concluded that existing forests,

KWells_book_1.fm Page 49 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Tropical Nature and the Imperial Design, 1786–1874

•

49

however small, should be preserved, a principle originally propounded in 1855 by John McClelland, Pegu’s first Superintendent of Forests.174 Consequently, in 1883, a forest department was established for purely protective functions and placed under Murton’s successor, N. Cantley.175 In Penang, the new Assistant Superintendent of Gardens, Charles Curtis (1884–1903), added a 3,570 ha forest to the revived Gardens in Waterfall River Valley, with a view to propagating trees.176 The formation of the Forest Department saw the creation of a third botanic garden in Melaka, which emphasized forestry, on land loaned by a local Chinese.177 Like Clarke, his successors encouraged the identification, classification and experimentation of plants potentially significant to commerce. Joseph Hooker’s evaluation of the flora of the Straits Settlements as ‘one of the richest on the globe’ and his proposed publication on the flora of the Peninsula inspired efforts that exonerated his earlier pronouncement that ‘no English profession on the globe is so badly supplied with the means of determining what its vegetation consists of…’.178 Governor Sir Cecil Clementi Smith’s application to the Colonial Office for a botanist ‘of a higher qualification and of stronger type’ than Cantley resulted in the selection in 1888 of Kew’s candidate, H.N. Ridley,179 as Director of the Gardens and Forests of the Straits Settlements (1888–1900). Ridley’s appointment, which placed him on a par with the Directors of the Botanic Gardens in Ceylon and Jamaica, heralded the transition in the Peninsula from nineteenth-century pioneer exploration, collection and curation – a largely amateur endeavour – to scientific botany of an international order. The era of British pioneer exploration in the Straits Settlements during 1786–1900 was devoted largely to advancing imperial economic botany in the humid tropics, laying the foundations for tropical forestry. The influence of forests on soil and climate and, more immediately, the economic value of forests and the threat of species depletion, engaged the concerns equally of botanists, naturalists and horticulturists. Though the concept of forest preservation was accepted unequivocally, arrangements for management remained tentative until British expansion into the larger arena of the Malay States warranted the creation of a professional forest service. NOTES 1 2 3 4 5

Quoted in R. Desmond, The Indian Museum, 1801–1879, London: The India Office Library, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London, 1982, p. 48. As of 1826, Penang, Singapore and Melaka were constituted as a Crown Colony headed by a Governor, and remained under British India until transferred, in 1867, to the Colonial Office. Grove, Green Imperialism, passim; R. Grove ‘The island and the history of environmentalism: the case of St. Vincent’, in M. Teich, R. Porter and B. Gustafsson (eds), Nature and Society in Historical Context, Cambridge: CUP, 1997, p. 153. L. White, ‘The historical roots of our ecological crisis’, Science, 155 (1967) No. 3767, pp. 1205–1206; V. Savage, Western Impressions of Nature and Landscape in Southeast Asia, Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1984, p. 16 W. Ashworth, ‘Emblematic natural history of the Renaissance’, in Jardine et al. (eds), Cultures of Natural History, p. 19.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 50 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation 6 7 8 9 10 11

12

13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29

•

50

The phytogeographic definition of Malesia includes Sunda, Wallacea and New Guinea. J.F. Veldkamp, ‘300th anniversary of Rumphius’ death’, Flora Malesiana Bulletin, 13, i (2002) pp. 7, 12. J. Gascoigne, Joseph Banks and the English Enlightenment: Useful Knowledge and Polite Culture, Cambridge: CUP, 1994, p. 111; Koerner, ‘Purposes of Linnaean travel: A preliminary research report’, p. 117. Chief Gardener at Kew Gardens, Hooper accompanied the embassy of Lord Amherst to the imperial court of Beijing in 1816, on the recommendation of Banks. Van Steenis-Kruseman, Flora Malesiana, p. 241. T. Horsfield, Zoological Researches in Java and the Neighbouring Islands (First published London, 1821–24). With a Memoir by J. Bastin, Singapore: OUP, 1990, pp. 9–10. J. Gascoigne, Science in the Service of Empire: Joseph Banks, the British State and the Uses of Science in the Age of Revolution, Cambridge: CUP, 1998, p. 130; Grove, Green Imperialism, pp. 235–238; R. Desmond, The European Discovery of the Indian Flora, Oxford: OUP, 1992, p. 53; D. Kumar, ‘The evolution of colonial science in India and the East India Company: Natural history and the East India Company’, in J.M. Mackenzie (ed.), Imperialism and the Natural World, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990, p. 51. Charles Miller succeeded James Hall. The latter replaced Phillip Miller, who died soon after his arrival in Benkulen. J. Kathirithamby-Wells, The British West Sumatran Presidency, 1760– 85: Problems of Early Colonial Administration, Kuala Lumpur: Penerbit Universiti Malaya, 1977, p. 93 n.65 & n.66; Van Steenis-Kruseman, Flora Malesiana, I, p. 362. W. Marsden, A History of Sumatra, London, 1811. Reprinted Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1966, p. 156. Kumar, ‘The evolution of colonial science in India: Natural history and the East India Company’, p. 51. Grove, Green Imperialism, pp. 336–340; Desmond, The European Discovery of the Indian Flora, pp. 57–58. The endeavours in the field of economic botany of Kyd (1785–93) and William Roxburgh (1793–1815) Superintendents in Calcutta, and Campbell in Benkulen were significant particularly with regard to spice cultivation. During the Napoleonic wars (1795–1815), the British finally broke the long-held Dutch monopoly of nutmegs when 22,000 plants from Amboina were shipped to Benkulen by William Roxburgh Jr, who succeeded Campbell as Superintendent of the government plantations. Marsden, History, pp. 147–148. See n. 13 above. Desmond, The European Discovery of the Indian Flora, p. 52. L. Pyenson, Empire of Reason: Exact Sciences in Indonesia, 1840–1940, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1989, p. 7; C. E. Wurtzburg, Raffles of the Eastern Isles, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1954, p. 181, 250–251. Malayan Miscellanies, Benkulen: Sumatran Mission Press, 1820, vol. I, p. iii. S.T. Raffles, The History of Java (First published London, 1817), Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1965, vol. I, pp. 34–43. J. Crawfurd, History of the Indian Archipelago, Edinburgh, 1820, 2 vols.; J. Anderson, Mission to the East Coast of Sumatra in 1823, Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1971. A.H. Hill (annotated and trans.), The Hikayat Abdullah: An Autobiography of Abdullah bin Abdul Kadir, 1794–1854, Singapore: OUP, 1969, p. 76. Wurtzburg, Raffles of the Eastern Isles, p. 686. Lady Sophia Raffles, Memoir of the Life and Public Services of Sir Stamford Raffles…, , London, 1830), (intro.) J. Bastin, Singapore: OUP, 1991, p. 449; Also, see ‘Catalogue of Zoological Specimens’, pp. 633–637. R. Hanitsch, ‘Letters of Nathaniel Wallich relating to the establishment of botanical gardens in Singapore’, JSBRAS, 65 (1913) p. 43. In 1804, the Marquess established an institution for promoting the natural history of India at his country residence in Barrackpore, with Francis Buchanan, Superintendent of zoological collections. Desmond, The European Discovery of the Indian Flora, pp. 66. 76; Desmond, The Indian Museum, p. 48. Hill (annoted and trans.), Hikayat Abdullah, pp. 68–69. Desmond, The Indian Museum, p. 48. J. Bastin, ‘Stamford Raffles and the study of natural history in Penang, Singapore and Indonesia’, JMBRAS, 63, ii (1990) p. 7. For more on Horsfield’s natural history explorations, see Horsfield, Zoological Researches.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 51 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Tropical Nature and the Imperial Design, 1786–1874 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

38 39 40 41

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

56

•

51

Raffles, Memoir, p. 449. Bastin (intro.), The Farquhar Collection of Natural History Drawings, vol. I, pp. 20–23. Desmond, The European Discovery of the Indian Flora, p. 37. Raffles, Memoir, p. 699. Wallich to Raffles, Singapore, 2 Nov. 1822, Raffles’ Papers, Ms Add. 7363, vol. IV, Cambridge University Library; Wallich to Raffles, 22 Nov. 1822, in Hanitsch, ‘Letters of Nathaniel Wallich’, p. 44; Bastin, ‘Stamford Raffles and the study of natural history’, p. 18. Raffles, 4 March 1823, Raffles: Papers, Ms Add. 7373, vol. II, f. 25. Raffles to the Duchess of Somerset, 18 April 1820, Raffles Memoir, p. 447. James Logan (1819–69) who began as an indigo planter in Bengal about 1839, moved to Penang where he was admitted to the bar. During 1843–53 he worked in Singapore in partnership with his brother, Abraham, and subsequently became editor of the Penang Gazette. His legal practice did not deter his pursuit of geology and natural history, which inspired his early explorations of Johor, Naning, Kedah and Selangor. C.M. Turnbull, The Straits Settlements, 1826–67: Indian Presidency to Crown Colony, Singapore: OUP, 1972, pp. 10 n., 314. J.R. Logan, ‘The present condition of the Indian Archipelago’, JIA, 1 (1847) p. 9. J.R. Logan, ‘Five Days in Naning, with a walk to the foot of Gunong Datu in Rembau’, JIA, 3 (1849) p. 409. N. Macalister, Historical Memoir Relative to the Prince of Wales Island, London: J.H. Hart, 1803, pp. 17–18. Penang’s shipbuilding operations continued, sustained partly by supplies from Rangoon but were closed following completion of a Company frigate in 1809. Subsequently, ship timber was sought only for repair, a small quantity obtained from Province Wellesley and mainly from Siak, reputedly able to provide timber suitable for the frame of the largest ship of the Navy. In 1810, the Penang government contracted privately with a Siak Arab-Malay prince, Pangeran Kasuma Delaga, to deliver spars for ship masts. Raffles to Calcutta, 27 July 1810, ff. 59–60, Mss. Eup. F. 148/3 (India Office Collection, The British Library, London). J. Cameron, Our Tropical Possessions in Malayan India (First published London, 1865), Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1965 A.M. Skinner, ‘Memoir of Capt. Francis Light’, JSBRAS, 28, 1895, p. 3. A.B. Rathborne, Camping and Tramping in Malaya: Fifteen Years’ Pioneering in the Native States of the Malay Peninsula, London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1898, pp. 11, 134. Cameron, Our Tropical Possessions in Malayan India, p. 308. Rathborne, Camping and Tramping, pp. 20–21. Captain James Low of the Madras army was Superintendent of Province Wellesley in the 1930s and Police Magistrate, Singapore, 1940–43. Turnbull, The Straits Settlements, p. 80 n. Orlong: relong: equivalent to about half a hectare. J. Low, A Dissertation on the Soil and Agriculture of the British Settlements… (First published 1836), Singapore: OUP, 1972, pp. 9–10. T.M. Ward, ‘Contributions to the medical topography of the Prince of Wales Island or Pulau Pinang’, Singapore Chronicle, 18 July 1833. Ibid. Low, A Dissertation on the Soil and Agriculture of the British Settlements…, pp. 128–129. Raffles, 4 March 1823, Memoir, Appendix, p. 29. H.P. Clodd, Malaya’s First British Pioneer: The Life of Francis Light, London: Luzac., 1948, p. 61. Preceding his employment in the Calcutta Botanic Gardens, Smith travelled with James Wiles on HMS Providence, which transported the breadfruit from Polynesia to the West Indies. Later, Smith succeeded the surgeon, William Hunter, at Penang and was Superintendent of the Government Nursery. Desmond, The European Discovery of the Indian Flora, pp. 62–63, 204; R. Desmond, Kew: The History of the Royal Botanic Gardens, London: Harvill Press/The Royal Botanic Gardens, 1995, pp. 124–125; J. Bastin, The British in West Sumatra, 1685–1825, Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press, 1965, p. 95 n. 295. Also known as Porter, he was originally a schoolmaster in Penang. In 1819 he became Overseer of labourers at the Calcutta Botanic Gardens before returning to Penang where he served as one of a team of collectors for Wallich. Ridley, The Flora of the Malay Peninsula, p. xv;

KWells_book_1.fm Page 52 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

57 58 59 60 61 62

63 64

65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77

78 79

80 81

•

52

Desmond, The European Discovery of the Indian Flora, pp. 82, 86. In 1826, the Nursery in Penang was again terminated. A full-fledged Botanic Garden was finally established under C.H. Curtis as Curator. Van Steenis-Kruseman, Flora Malesiana, p. ci. Also, see below. H.R.C. Wright, ‘The Moluccas spice monopoly’, JMBRAS, 31, iv (1958) pp. 54–55. Fibre from rami, natural to Malaya, was used by the Malays to make fishing nets. Burkill, Economic Products, II, p.345. Though experimented with by various Chinese and European entrepreneurs, neither hemp nor rami cultivation attained any commercial importance. Proceedings of the Agricultural Society Established in Sumatra, 1820, Benkulen: Sumatran Mission Press, 1821. vol. I (Only one volume was published). Brown to Cockburn, 31 Dec. 1803; Raffles to Brown, 25 June 1821; Brown to Raffles, n.d.; Brown to Phillips, n.d., Penang 1801–25, British Association of Malaysia Archives, RSMS 103/ BAM, XIII/1-2, Cambridge University Library. Raffles to Brown, 20 June 1821, ibid. Of South American origin, Bixa orellana was cultivated in the western Archipelago and was widely used for colouring food and as a dye. It is not to be confused with true safflower (kesumba: Carthamus tinctorius) or bastard saffron, possibly indigenous to India, which requires a drier climate. Burkill, A Dictionary of Economic Products, I, pp.333–334; 471–472; Singapore Chronicle, No. 87, 19 July 1927; H.F. Macmillan, Tropical Plants and Gardening, (First published Colombo, 1910), Revised, H.S. Barlow, I. Enoch and R.A. Russell, 1991, Kuala Lumpur: Malayan Nature Society, pp. 484–485. Singapore Chronicle, 15 March 1927, 12 May 1831, 18 July 1833. Producing a strong durable wood, damar laut was often substituted for cengal in Penang. Burkill, A Dictionary of Economic Products, II, p. 2046. Calophyllum inophyllum yields nuts that produce abundant, strongly scented oil utilized for medicine and burning. The gum or dammar produced by Agathis borneensis was used for lighting and as an ingredient for varnishes. Macmillan, Tropical Planting and Gardening, pp. 440, 456. Oxley, ‘The botany of Singapore’, JIA, 4 (1850) pp. 439–440. J.T. Thomson, ‘A sketch of the career of the late James Richardson Logan of Penang and Singapore’, JSBRAS, 7 (1881) pp. 76–77. Clodd, Malaya’s First British Pioneer, pp. 104–111. Turnbull, The Straits Settlements, pp. 140–141. P.J. Begbie, The Malay Peninsula (First published Madras, 1834), Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1967, p. 372. See Illustration 4. See ‘View from Raffles’ House, Buitenzorg’, Contemporary water colour, Wurtzburg, Raffles of the Eastern Isles, facing p. 256. Begbie, The Malay Peninsula, p. 372. Four-fifths of the remaining forests covered Penang Hill. H.N. Ridley, Annual Report on the Botanic Gardens and Forest Department, 1890, Singapore 1891, p. 2. Clodd, Malaya’s First British Pioneer, pp. 119–120; Wurtzburg, Raffles of the Eastern Isles, p. 49. James Wathen, Quoted in Clodd, Malaya’s First British Pioneer, p.120. Grove, Green Imperialism, pp. 413–414. J.W. Purseglove, The Ridley Centenary: 10 Dec. 1955, Singapore: Botanic Gardens, 1956, p.2. Of the 23-ha plot donated to the Society for the Gardens by Hoa Ah Kay of Whampoa Gardens, 4 ha of tropical rain forest have remained as part of the Singapore Botanic Gardens. V. Sanson, Gardens and Parks of Singapore, Singapore, OUP, 1992, p. 19. C.B. Buckley, An Anecdotal History of Old Times in Singapore (First published Singapore, 1902), Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press, 1965, p. 315; Turnbull, The Straits Settlements, p.147. G.W. Earl, The Eastern Seas (First published London, 1837), Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1971, p. 410; Cameron, Our Tropical Possessions, pp. 81–82,168; T.J. Newbold, Political and Statistical Account of the British Settlements in the Straits of Malacca (First published London, 1839), Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1971, vol. I, pp. 270–273; Buckley, An Anecdotal History, pp. 402, 405. R. Little, ‘Diseases of the nutmeg tree’, JIA, 3 (1849) p. 678. Ibid.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 53 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Tropical Nature and the Imperial Design, 1786–1874

•

53

82 Sanson, Gardens and Parks of Singapore, pp. 8, 32. 83 Burkill, Economic Products, II, pp. 2241–2242. 84 The profligate land use by the Chinese in the early years contrasted with their later prudence, as land legislation and permanent settlement encouraged intensive cultivation, assisted by manuring with decayed fish and bat guano. 85 J. Balestier, ‘View of the state of agriculture in the British possessions in the Straits of Malacca’, JIA (1848) 2, p. 146. 86 J.C. Jackson, Planters and Speculators: Chinese and European Agricultural Enterprise in Malaya, 1786–1921, Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press, 1968, pp. 10–11. 87 Lim Teck Gee, Origins of a Colonial Economy: Land and Agriculture in Perak, 1874–1897, Penang: Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia, 1976, p. 119. 88 Balestier, ‘View of the state of agriculture’, p. 145; Newbold, Political and Statistical Account, I, pp. 269–270; Cameron, Our Tropical Possessions, p. 82. 89 Jackson, Planters and Speculators, pp. 23–24. 90 Under this system, a grant was made by the Temenggung to kanchu or ‘lords of the river’ for opening up whole forested river valleys for gambier and pepper planting. 91 Jackson, Planters and Speculators, pp. 15–20, 28–29. 92 Cassava was introduced in 1794 as an experimental crop in the Calcutta Botanic Gardens. It had reached Penang by the 1830s but figured much later as a cash crop. Burkill, Economic Products, II, pp. 1437–1438. 93 See Chapter 2, p. 65. 94 Jackson, Planters and Speculators, pp. 53–57, 72, 78; Turnbull, The Straits Settlements, p. 159. 95 A. Wallace, The Malay Archipelago (First published London, 1869), New York: Dover Publications, 1962, p. 19. 96 Cameron, Our Tropical Possessions, pp. 90–102. 97 Turnbull, The Straits Settlements, p. 153. 98 J. Crawfurd, Journal of an Embassy from the Governor-General of India to the Courts of Siam and Cochin China (First published 1828, London), Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1967, p. 535; Earl, The Eastern Seas, p. 358; T. Oxley, ‘The Zoology of Singapore’, JIA, 3 (1849) pp. 594–595. 99 In indigenous shipbuilding cengal and damar laut provided the frame of the vessels; the red and white merbau (Intsia palembanica), the planks; and bintangur batu (Calophyllum inophyllum) and keranji (Dialium spp.), the masts and spars. Hard and highly polished, the kemuning (Murraya paniculata) was prized for fashioning knife and kris handles, while ebony (Diospyros spp.), akar laka (Dalbergia parviflora) and eaglewood (gaharu: Aquilaria malaccensis) constituted valuable exports. Newbold, Political and Statistical Account, I, p. 442; Earl, The Eastern Seas, p. 414. 100 Cameron, Our Tropical Possessions, p. 31. 101 Wurtzburg, Raffles of the Eastern Isles, p. 487. 102 Crawfurd, Journal of an Embassy, p. 530. 103 J.T. Thomson, Sequel to Some Glimpses into Life in the Far East, London: Richardson, 1865, p 28. 104 Ibid., p. 322. 105 See Low, A Dissertation on the Soil and Agriculture of the British Settlements. 106 Quoted in Buckley, An Anecdotal History, p. 359. 107 Low, A Dissertation on the Soil and Agriculture of the British Settlements, p.3. 108 F.L. Baumgarten, ‘Agriculture in Malacca’, JIA, 3 (1849), p. 716. 109 Crawfurd, Journal of an Embassy, pp. 533–534; J. Crawfurd, ‘Agriculture of Singapore’, JIA, 3 (1849) pp. 508–509; Buckley, An Anecdotal History, p.180. 110 Baumgarten, ‘Agriculture in Malacca’, pp. 137–138; Turnbull, The Straits Times, p. 151–152. 111 Ibid., pp. 708–711. 112 Kathirithamby-Wells, The British West Sumatran Presidency, p. 60. 113 Grove, Green Imperialism, pp. 395–397. 114 Ibid., pp. 428–429. 115 Ibid., pp. 422–428.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 54 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

54

116 The other members of the Committee were Prof. Forbes Royle, King’s College, London, Capt. R. Baird Smith and Capt. Starchey of the Bengal Engineers. S. Dipper (ed.), Silviculture in the Tropical Rainforest: An Historical Analysis of Success and Failures, Annotated Abstracts by H.C. Dawkins, Oxford: Oxford Forestry School, 1997, p. 56. 117 Cleghorn et al., quoted in Dipper (ed.) Silviculture in the Tropical Rain Forest, p.56. 118 Grove, Green Imperialism, pp. 437–438; J. R. Logan, ‘The probable effects on the climate of Penang of the continued destruction of its hill jungles’, JIA, 2 (1848) pp. 534–536. 119 Thomson, ‘A sketch of the career of the late James Richardson Logan’, pp. 75–81; Turnbull, The Straits Settlements, pp. 10, 26. 120 Logan, ‘Five Days in Naning’, p. 36. 121 Boomgard has noted that P.H.F. Fromberg, an agricultural scientist in the Netherlands Indies who published a booklet on the probable effect of deforestation on climate, may also have been influenced by the writings of Humboldt and Boussingault. P. Boomgaard, ‘Oriental nature, its friends and its enemies: Conservation of nature in late-colonial Indonesia, 1889– 1949,’ Environment and History, 5(1999) p. 262. 122 Logan, ‘ The probable effects on the climate of Penang’, p. 535. 123 Begbie, The Malay Peninsula, p. 380. 124 Logan, ‘The probable effects on the climate of Penang’, pp. 534–535. 125 Grove, Green Imperialism, pp. 470–471. 126 D. Lowenthal, (intro.) in G. P. Marsh, Man and Nature, or Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action (First published 1864, New York), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965, p. xvii. 127 Marsh, Man and Nature, p. 3; D. Worster, ‘The vulnerable earth: Towards a planetary history’, in D. Worster (ed.), The Ends of the Earth: Perspectives on Modern Environmental History, Cambridge: CUP, pp. 7–8. 128 P.D. Lowe, ‘Values and institutions in the history of British nature conservation’, in A. Warren and F.B. Goldsmith (eds), Conservation in Perspective, London: John Wiley, 1983, p. 333. 129 Grove, Green Imperialism, p. 438. 130 Dipper (ed.), Silviculture in the Tropical Rainforest, Abstract 60, pp. 56–57. 131 Quoted in Grove, Green Imperialism, p. 455. 132 Ibid., pp. 426–427, 451, 461. 133 Quoted in E.P. Stebbing, The Forests of India, London: John Lane, 1922, vol. 1, p. 531. 134 P. Boomgaard, ‘Colonial forest policy in Java in transition, 1865–1916’, in R. Cribb (ed.), The Late Colonial State in Indonesia: Political and Economic Foundations of the Netherlands East Indies, 1880–1942’, Leiden: Verhandelingen, 163, Leiden: KITLV, 1994, pp. 127–128. 135 However, until 1890 no reserves were created for non-teak forests. N.L. Peluso,‘The history of state forest management’, Journal of Forest History, 35 (1991) p. 69; Boomgard, ‘Colonial forest policy in Java in transition’, pp.128–129. 136 Logan, ‘The probable effects on the climate of Penang’, p. 534. 137 Though concerned with soil protection, Newbold’s account of Penang, like that of Singapore, makes no direct reference to deforestation. Indeed, he describes Penang island as ‘wooded to the water’s edge’. Newbold’s commitment to recommending the commercial potential of the Straits Settlements to the authorities in India may well have contributed to biased reporting. C.M. Turnbull, Introduction, Newbold, Political and Statistical Account, I, p. viii. 138 Logan, ‘The probable effects on the climate of Penang’, p. 534. 139 Antoine C’esar Becquerel, Des Climats et de l’influence qu’exercent les sols boisés et non boisés (Paris, 1853), quoted in Marsh, Man and Nature, pp. 134–135. 140 Rathborne, Camping and Tramping in Malaya, p. 49. 141 Ibid., p. 84. 142 T.J. Newbold, ‘Johore and its former dependencies of Jompol Gominchi’, in J.H. Moor, Notices of the Indian Archipelago (First published 1837, Singapore), London: Frank Cass, 1968, p. 69. 143 Newbold, Political and Statistical Account, II, pp. 154–156. Benzoin occurred in the wild in Sumatra and in the Peninsula, from Perak to Singapore on the western side, and in Pahang and Johor on the eastern side. Burkill, Economic Products, II, pp. 2143.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 55 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Tropical Nature and the Imperial Design, 1786–1874

•

55

144 Turnbull, The Straits Settlements, p. 274. 145 J.S. Logan, ‘The Orang Binua of Johore’, JIA, 1 (1847) pp. 295–296; ‘The Biduanda Kallang of the River Pulai in Johore’, JIA, 1 (1847) pp.299–300. Although Logan has called them the ‘Orang Seletar’ (‘river nomads’), distinguishing them from sea nomads, according to Sopher, they ‘may represent some intermixing of forest people with a relic and degenerate group of sea nomads, quite possibly, the Orang Seletar’. This view is supported by evidence in Singapore where they inhabited the mangroves, drained partly by the Kallang River. D.E. Sopher, The Sea Nomads: A. Study of the Maritime Boat People of Southeast Asia, Singapore: National Museum, 1965, pp. 52, 107–108. 146 Collection of the fragrant wood, gaharu or eagle wood, involved felling the tree and chipping the softwood in the hunt for patches of dark, diseased woods of all manner of shapes. These were then fashioned into the fanciful shape of birds, rhinoceros or humans (gaharu merupa). Rare and believed to have magical properties, they commanded a high market value even in the early twentieth century. In 1920, Singapore is calculated to have exported 22,200 kg for $142,751. Burkill, Economic Products, I, pp. 198–200; Foxworthy, Minor Forest Products, p. 173. 147 Logan, ‘The Orang Binua of Johor’, p. 286. 148 Though extracted from various Palaquium species such as P. maingayi (taban putih), the best gutta-percha was derived from Palaquium gutta or taban merah which, because of its superior quality, gained the trade name, taban sutera or ‘silky taban’. Burkill, Economic Products, II, pp. 1662–1668; 1709–1710. 149 Oxley, ‘Gutta-percha’, pp. 22–23; Logan, ‘The Orang Binua of Johor’, pp. 261–262. 150 Buckley, An Anecdotal History, pp. 402–403. 151 Burkill, Economic Products, II, p.1653. 152 A specimen he presented to the Royal Society of Arts on his visit to England caught the attention of Royle, an expert on raw materials (see note 116). Finally, based on a shipment made by Montgomerie in 1845, the properties of gutta-percha were fully appraised by Dr. Solly and earned the Singapore surgeon the Society’s gold medal. Buckley, An Anecdotal History, pp. 402–403; T. Oxley, ‘Gutta percha’, JIA, 1 (1847) pp. 22–29. 153 Oxley, ‘Gutta-percha’, p. 29. 154 See p. 10. 155 A.J. Fyfe, ‘Gutta-percha’, Malayan Forester, 12 (1949) p. 26. 156 Foxworthy, Minor Forest Products, p.163. 157 J.R. Logan, ‘Range of the gutta taban collectors and present amount of imports into Singapore’, JIA, 2, p. 529. 158 Ibid., pp. 529–530. 159 Ibid., p. 529. 160 C.A.Trocki, Prince of Pirates: The Temenggongs and the Development of Johor and Singapore, Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1979, pp. 76–77. 161 Buckley, An Anecdotal History, pp. 495–496. 162 The price per pikul (60.4 kg) soared from just $8 in 1844 to $28 in 1848. 163 Because of illegal imports, export figures were higher. 164 Oxley, ‘Gutta-percha’ p. 25. For an account of the spread of gutta-percha collection in Sumatra and Borneo, see L.M. Potter, ‘A forest product out of control: Gutta-percha in Indonesia and the wider Malay world’, in Boomgaard et al. (eds), Paper Landscapes, pp. 288– 296. 165 Logan, ‘Range of the gutta taban collectors’, pp. 532–533. The Chamber of Commerce in Singapore claimed a much higher figure of 600–720,000 kg, which cannot be verified. Buckley, An Anecdotal History, pp. 482–483. 166 Logan, ‘Range of the gutta taban collectors’, p. 532; Wurtzburg, Raffles of the Eastern Isles, pp. 404–405. 167 Burkill, Economic Products, II, p. 1655. 168 Stebbing, The Forests of India, I, p. 533. 169 Desmond, Kew, pp. 214–215, 252, 293–295. 170 J. Hooker, Himalayan Journals, quoted in D. Arnold, ‘Conceptualizing the “environment”: The case of early 19th century Asia’; L. Grossman, ‘The history of colonial forest policy in

KWells_book_1.fm Page 56 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

171 172 173

174 175 176 177 178 179

•

56

Jamaica from the late nineteenth century’. Papers presented at the International Conference on Forest and Environmental History of the British Empire and Commonwealth’, 19–21 March 2003, University of Sussex, UK, n.p. Andrew Clarke to Earl of Carnarvon, 9 April 1874, ‘Singapore Botanic Gardens, 1874–1917’, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (RBGK). W.R. Malcolm, Colonial Office to Murton, 30 Jan. 1875, ‘Singapore Botanic Gardens, 1874– 1917’, RBGK; J.W. Purseglove, The Ridley Centenary: 10 December 1955, Singapore: Botanic Gardens, p. 2; Turnbull, The Straits Settlements, 1956, p. 149. Clarke to Carnarvon, 20 Aug. 1874, ‘Singapore Botanic Gardens, 1874–1917’, RBGK. Clarke’s personal interest in boosting the herbarium collection in Singapore was manifested in his request to Kew for the return of the botanical collection A.C. Maingay had made during his service in Melaka (1862–68). Clarke to Carnarvon, 9 April 1874, ‘Singapore Botanic Gardens, 1874–1917’, RBGK. Stebbing, The Forests of India, 1, p. 296; Grove, Green Imperialism, pp. 460–461; Bryant, The Political Ecology of Forestry in Burma, pp. 37–38. Born in Scotland and employed in the Kew Botanic Gardens since 1869, Cantley was Assistant Superintendent of the Botanic Gardens in Mauritius before his appointment to Singapore. Van Steenis-Kruseman, Flora Malesiana, I, p. 100. Jones, ‘The “Waterfall” Botanic Gardens’, pp. 76–77; B. Tinsley, Visions of Delight: The Singapore Botanic Gardens through the Ages, Singapore: Botanic Gardens, 1989, p. 23. Upon abolition of the Melaka Gardens in 1896, the land reverted to the owner. J.D. Hooker, Memo on the proposed Flora of the Straits Settlements, 7 Sept. 1887,‘Singapore Botanic Gardens, 1874–1917’, RBGK. Sir Cecil Clementi Smith to Lord Knutsford, 16 April 1888; J. D. Hooker to the Colonial Office, 11 June 1888, No. 151, ‘Singapore Botanic Gardens, 1874–1917’, RBGK. Ridley was Assistant in the Botany Department of the British Museum, London (1888–87) before his appointment in the Straits Settlements. Van Steenis-Kruseman, Flora Malesiana, I, pp. 435– 436.

5. Dwellings fashioned out of forest products i. Orang Asli dwelling in deep jungle, West Peninsula, c. 1950 (RCS Collection) ii. Malay nobleman’s house, Kuala Kangsar, Perak, 1878 (RCS Collection) – opposite iii. ‘Smoke House Inn’: Bungalow at Kukup, Johor, c.1900 (RCS Collection) – opposite iv. House amidst pioneer clearance (KITLV, Leiden) – opposite

KWells_book_1.fm Page 57 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Tropical Nature and the Imperial Design, 1786–1874

•

57

KWells_book_1.fm Page 58 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

CHAPTER TWO

Forests in the Pioneer Era, 1874– c.1900: Boon or Bane? The preservation of the timber on all mountains in the neighbourhood of valuable deposits of tin is of such obvious necessity, unless cheap and efficient means other than water power of draining the mines be introduced, that it requires no comment. – Hugh Low1

overnor Andrew Clarke, who led British intervention in the Peninsula,2 was quick to recognize the opportunity it offered for extending botanical exploration into a whole new realm of tropical forest. His enthusiasm was helped by the emergence of a class of naturalists-cumadministrators, shaped by the pioneer landscape of British rule. Among them was Hugh Low, Resident of Perak (1877–89), who emphasized the value of forests beyond their immediate economic uses. The ‘Federated Malay States’ (FMS), comprising Perak, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan and Pahang was formed in 1896, with the Governor in Singapore as High Commissioner. The new administrative arrangement aimed at protecting and managing a common pool of resources, of which forests were a valuable part. The subsequent pace of development soon exposed the myth of the infinite abundance of accessible forests and brought home the urgency of balancing exploitation with prudent management. In this regard, commitment of the Malayan administration to instituting coordinated and efficient wood production dovetailed with Kew’s broader aims of protecting forests for the preservation of climate and economic species. Its pleas to the Colonial Office for forest protection were, in fact, bolstered by the enthusiasm of amateur naturalists within the Peninsular administration. The Kew-inspired discourse on the importance of tropical forests to the interests of Empire, beyond commitment to wood production, galvanized the inauguration in 1901 of professional forestry in the British protected Malay States.

G

THE COMMODIFICATION OF FORESTS

By the early nineteenth century, when European sea power closed in on Malay maritime trade and marauding, rivalry within the indigenous elite for control over hinterland resources intensified under the stimulus of Straits-based capital

KWells_book_1.fm Page 59 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Forests in the Pioneer Era, 1874– c.1900: Boon or Bane?

•

59

and Chinese immigrant labour.3 Penetration of the forest by entrepreneurial mining activity gained pace particularly in the west coast States of Selangor, Negeri Sembilan and Perak. The inhabitants of these States took advantage of the new climate of economic growth generated by the Straits Settlements to increase their cash earnings by way of using their customary rights to forest produce. Their rulers, likewise, capitalized on the demand for forest produce by augmenting the traditional levies on the export of canes, oils, gums and hides to include taxes on gutta-percha, attap, and charcoal production for the bourgeoning mining industry.4 These levies were subsequently incorporated within the more broad-based colonial tax regime. The laws, licences and taxes that governed natural resource extraction under British rule amounted to a total monopoly of the forest. In Perak, duties were imposed on timber, nibung thatch, nipa and bakau (Rhizophora spp.), their collection generally farmed out to Chinese.5 In Negeri Sembilan, extraction of rattan, gutta-percha, nipa and firewood for kilns and charcoal burners was subject to the purchase of an annual licence at one dollar.6 These measures constituted a breach with the more benign Malay tradition that restricted the rulers’ tax claims to selected export items. That past institutional arrangements could not be sustained indefinitely under conditions of intensive exploitation provided justification for colonial resource management. The impact of an expanding domestic market on the forest economy was best exemplified by the tin-rich State of Perak. The demand rose exponentially for poles for the mines and wood for smelting, in addition to timber and fuel

6. Rhizophora (bakau), (Watson, 1928)

KWells_book_1.fm Page 60 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

60

for the domestic needs of a fast-growing population. The flood of Chinese and Malay-Indonesian immigration following British intervention escalated demand for a wide variety of forest produce. Even products once collected freely from the village environs gained market value.7 The high cost of labour placed a premium especially on wood. In Perak, labour, at 40 cents per day with food, was two or three times the current rate in the Colony. To more profitably invest their labour in earning cash and avoid the purchase of timber-cutting licences, the peasantry opted for cheaper substitutes for wood. They utilized nibung for posts and constructed floors, walls and roofs using a variety of materials including bamboo, bark, and palm leaves. The successful adaptation of these materials for domestic architecture is attested in the remark by Perak’s first Resident J.W.W. Birch (1874–75) that he would be ‘quite satisfied’ with a house of such construction.8 The main consumers of the best timber were the relatively prosperous Chinese residents in the new mining townships constructed largely of wood. The wood industry proliferated under Chinese timber-cutting kongsi, based especially in Pangkor and the Dindings and supported by a plethora of sawyers and carpenters. Accessible sources of heavy-hardwood, described as plentiful during the time of Resident Birch, became less abundant during the administration of Hugh Low. Attention thus turned to the extensive and valuable source of mangrove wood in the Dindings for supplementing fuel needs. 9 Low introduced taxes and royalties on wood as a means of raising revenues and regulating extraction.10 Also imposed were taxes on non-timber forest produce (NTFP) which, together with land rents, were the main revenues raised from the Malays.11 In 1901, for example, the taxes collected from the Malays in the FMS accounted for only half the land revenues but three-quarters of the forest revenues, extracted largely from NTFP.12 Before the inauguration of a professional forest service, Land Offices took charge of forest administration, assisted in the collection of revenues by the penghulu (village heads).13 PIONEER CONSER VATION

In common with counterpart Residents in the Peninsula, Low recognized forest utilization as indispensable to settlement and development. At the same time, as a naturalist with long experience of the Bornean rain forest, he was aware both of the economic and environmental implication of forest depletion. 14 Later elected a Fellow of the Linnean and the Zoological Societies of London, Low represented the early generation of colonial administrators who, impelled by pioneer instincts and relative social isolation, endeavoured to understand the indivisible links between the land and the people he administered. Low sponsored botanical exploration, reconciling the pursuit of natural science with the task of pioneer development. He facilitated the visit to Perak of George King (later Sir), Superintendent of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Calcutta (1871–98) and, through his influence, arranged for Hermann Kunstler, the

KWells_book_1.fm Page 61 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Forests in the Pioneer Era, 1874– c.1900: Boon or Bane?

•

61

German explorer, to collect in the Peninsula. During 1884–86, Low also employed as Government Botanist Rev. Father Benedetto Scortechini, a Roman Catholic priest who had worked in Queensland.15 The Perak Museum in Taiping, founded in 1883, remains to this day an edifice to his interest in natural history. Under his inspiration, the first Curator, Leonard Wray,16 assembled the Peninsula’s pioneer ethnographic, zoological and geological collections.17 An indefatigable polymath, Wray also assisted in fulfilling Low’s ambition of augmenting the collection at the Calcutta Herbarium, enabling George King and J.S. Gamble to make their preliminary study of the flora of the Malay Peninsula. 18 Low’s ardent botanical interests related to the wider debates on tropical deforestation and climate change. His views strongly echoed the concerns of Logan some 30 years earlier (see pp. 41–42), which currently preoccupied Joseph Hooker at Kew If the general belief can be trusted, the denudation of forest land very much alters the climate of a country, making it hotter, diminishing the rainfall and causing it to rush down the mountains in floods, carrying the surface soil with it instead of by the comparatively steady flow of the water-courses when protected by the jungle.19

Unlike Logan who had no official rank, Low was able to use the substantial powers he wielded as Resident to translate some of his ideas into practice, taking advantage of the growing sensitivity of his superiors to forest depletion. Hooker’s request for reportage on colonial forests (see p. 48) was followed by efforts to anticipate timber depletion in the colonies. Introducing the idea of sustainability, the Colonial Secretary, Lord Carnarvon, advocated instituting reforestation as a means of averting depletion in areas of concentrated economic activity. Low interpreted metropolitan interest in forest preservation as endorsement for forest protection on a wider front, including its importance for climate, hydrology and soil stability that he considered could be at stake. 20 More immediately, the heavy run on timber and water resources by settlement and mining in Larut claimed Low’s attention. To protect water supplies drawn principally from Gunung Hijau (1,488 m) in the Larut Hills (Banjaran Bintang), he prohibited cultivation on the western face.21 These forests, which have survived into the present time,22 bear testimony to one of the earliest conservation efforts in the Peninsula. Low’s initiative, possible within the wide remit of the early British Residents, is a powerful comment on bureaucratic delays that have often prejudiced twentieth-century environmental management. According to one opinion, the pioneer era, which ended in 1904 with the departure of Frank Swettenham as Governor (see below), was one in which Residents ‘enjoyed a measure of individual discretion at the [R]esidential level that would be hard to find elsewhere in Edwardian times’. 23 The threat to the Gunung Hijau forest that Low successfully arrested represented three principal agents ascribed in the pioneer era to forest degradation, namely, tin mining, shifting cultivation and European plantation activity.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 62 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

62

The convergence of all three sectors in the lowlands below 300 m, the habitat of the dipterocarp forest at its richest, challenged rationalized forest use. To regulate extraction as well as raise revenues, each of the Protected States passed appropriate laws under the de facto authority of the Resident. Forest laws, which were closely tied in with land and revenue laws, provided an ad hoc arrangement in the absence of special forest legislation comparable with the 1878 Indian Forest Act and the 1881 Burma Forest Act. But while these Acts established the colonial state’s claims to propriety rights,24 similar claims in the Peninsula were founded on the legal fiction of ‘indirect rule’. Under ‘advisory rule’ the sovereign powers of rulers were interpreted to the best advantage of the State, setting aside the flexibility of the ruler’s customary claims. 25 The 1897 Land Enactment introduced a new tenurial system for smallholders that, contrary to established practice, restricted mobility and prevented free access to the forest, whether for agricultural conversion or for the collection of forest products.26 Revenues from forest produce derived from the unprecedented run on wood, attap, bamboo and rattan for mine equipment, construction of kongsi houses and for fast-growing townships. A 10 per cent royalty was made payable in Perak on all forest produce, as well as an export duty on gutta-percha. 27 Furthermore, to pre-empt over-exploitation, particularly of nipa, Resident Low withdrew the monopoly in lower Perak from a Chinese licensee and returned the industry, hopefully, to more sustainable levels of Malay harvesting. Under leases to individual villages, the penghulu were entrusted with the proper care and protection of stands for a 10 per cent commission (cabut).28 These measures notwithstanding, forest attrition was hard to arrest. In Perak, apart from the destruction of mature taban for gutta-percha extraction, the indiscriminate felling of timber for the mines led to the scarcity of accessible sources of the popular heavy-hardwoods, merbau (Intsia palembanica) and cengal. The ban against use of valuable woods for charcoal production proved difficult to enforce and manufacturing continued undetected in the isolated recesses of the forest. Barely five years after British intervention, timber within a 20–30 km radius of the Larut mines had been depleted. 29 Reporting on Selangor in 1875, Frank Swettenham declared ‘the advantage to the country of having gardens and tracts of cleared lands, instead of jungle,’ 30 only to soon admit the extent of devastation inflicted by the tin mines. We give to the miner what is often fine land covered with magnificent forest and when he has destroyed the timber he turns the soil upside down and after a few years abandons it, leaving huge stretches of country a sightless waste of water-holes. 31

Measures for wood conservation failed to keep pace with consumption by the mines. According to an 1893 estimate, an annual average of 280,000 cu m of wood, converted to charcoal, fed the FMS tin-smelting industry. 32 By the turn of the century, it was estimated that some 10,000 Chinese were engaged

KWells_book_1.fm Page 63 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Forests in the Pioneer Era, 1874– c.1900: Boon or Bane?

•

63

year-round in cutting timber for the mines. The pumping engines consumed vast amounts of the hard and valuable wood species that gave a hotter burn, compared with the more abundant and faster-growing medium-hardwoods. 33 Thus, Low’s efforts to save wood wastage in general, and hardwoods in particular, were not entirely successful. In 1888, a ban on the popular ‘relau semut’ furnace, in favour of the ‘relau tonga’ furnace, more economical on fuel, triggered riots in Kinta and was promptly revoked. 34 Even less easy to control was the run on mangroves (bakau). Apart from supplementing fuel for the tin industry, Perak’s mangroves supplied the sugar industries in Penang and Province Wellesley. By 1905 the total wood consumption in the FMS had risen substantially to around 98,000 cu m of first-class timber, 191,000 cu m of firewood and 5,800 cu m of charcoal. In addition, the mines were estimated to have used some 700,000 cu m of free timber and fuel.35 As accessible areas of forests became increasingly scarce towards the end of the century, passes were introduced for woodcutting, and a one-dollar tax imposed on every pikul (60 kg) extracted. E L NI Ñ O A N D S H I F T I N G CUL T IV A T I O N

More difficult to regulate than forest produce extraction was shifting cultivation, deemed one of the major obstacles to forest management. Swidden cultivation was widespread in Perak. The abundance of land for shifting cultivation and the opportunities available for cash earning from the mines and townships were clear disincentives to settlement. In Perak, as elsewhere, the flood of Indonesian immigrants planted swiddens, to avoid the arduous task of clear felling and stumping for permanent cultivation.36 Not least, the occurrence of ENSO related drought, flood and disease (see pp. 5–6) increased widespread shifting cultivation. During the 1870s, crop failure in Perak’s paddy lands following drought, flood, cattle disease and recurrent insect and rat plagues, swelled the number of swidden cultivators. Of the estimated population of around 25,000 in 1874, only a fraction cultivated paddy.37 The situation was not helped by the influx of immigrants into the relatively vacant spaces in Perak, Province Wellesley, north Selangor and Pahang, escaping the ravages of El Niño-induced drought in Kelantan and South Kalimantan.38 Despite official concern about the seasonal clearance of virgin forests by the migrant population, no immediate solution was found.39 Throughout the period 1884–89 and in 1897, 1901 and 1903, the Kerian district of Perak – the prime paddy area in the FMS – experienced sporadic drought, crop failure and cholera.40 Failed harvests were also recorded in 1889 and 1891 in Negeri Sembilan.41 These climatic events, which seriously affected rice production for the expanding west coast industrial economy, precipitated the move towards government sponsored irrigation schemes. Apart from their restriction to selected areas, implementation was slow and widespread shifting cultivation continued.42

KWells_book_1.fm Page 64 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

64

In 1881, within a total land area of 186,480 sq km constituting Perak State, no more than about 300 sq km was under paddy, largely in the Perak valley around the Malay administrative capital of Kuala Kangsar. But, even here, swidden cultivation was resumed in 1900 and 1908, following failed harvests. 43 Further up, in Hulu Perak, shifting cultivation was common among Patani Malays who raised tobacco, coffee and maize as cash crops. By the end of the century, ‘miles and miles’ of hill slopes, covered in Arabian coffee, were exposed to erosion.44 The scene was no different in Pahang and Selangor.45 The former, even at the end of the century, was described as ‘almost devoid’ of a settled Malay agricultural populace.46 The majority of colonial administrators, including Resident Low, regarded shifting cultivation to be wasteful. This opinion was based largely on evidence of the less than ideal forms practised by a large majority of immigrants, fleeing famine and disease and, as yet, uncommitted to their new land. Unlike the practice among Malays under more stable economic conditions, the random opportunistic activities of immigrants were unrelated to rationalized rotational cycles within a recognized territorial range. Their practices involved, as Resident Low noted, ‘clearing jungle land, dibbling seeds into its charred surface and abandoning it after taking from it a single crop’.47 Shifting cultivation was more often than not speculative. Swiddens, deliberately selected along paths and elephant tracks,48 gained a market value for plantation agriculture after the first crop was taken. Sufficiently lucrative, the practice persisted in the FMS even after the Malay population increased significantly, from around 230,000 in 1891, to 313,763 in 1900.49 Peasant cultivators, who were allowed three years of rent-free occupation, abandoned the land after one or two crops to take up new plots elsewhere.50 In 1887 Selangor banned ladang and, in 1890, the Perak government prohibited the conversion to swiddens of all forest more than 6 years old.51 As young secondary forest was more amenable to agricultural conversion than virgin forest, the ban was expected to discourage shifting cultivation but proved futile. There was little incentive for settled agriculture until the turn of the century when irrigation and pest control were more successfully introduced and Para rubber ( Hevea brasiliensis) emerged as a viable cash crop.52 In the long term, the multiple pressures which development brought to bear on traditional swiddening rendered it environmentally unsustainable, validating colonial revocation of usufruct. By virtue of the dependence of swidden cultivation on forest land, the introduction of colonial land- and forest laws established formal patterns of settlement and land use. Where once Malays were able to settle and cultivate at will, they were now obliged to secure agricultural leases for paddy cultivation, paying survey fees, premium and land rent. Yet, in the more remote areas, such as upper Pahang and east Kedah, shifting cultivation persisted among the poor and the landless. Continuing well into the twentieth century, it provided an indispensable fallback during hard times (see pp. 231, 242–243).

KWells_book_1.fm Page 65 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Forests in the Pioneer Era, 1874– c.1900: Boon or Bane?

•

65

Even more damaging than Malay ‘scratch’ agriculture was Chinese plantation enterprise. At the end of the century when frequent El Niño impacts affected agriculture, the cultivation of the drought-resistant cassava spread rapidly on land previously impoverished by Chinese pepper and gambier planting. 53 Unlike its cultivation within the mix of plants in indigenous kitchen gardens and swiddens,54 plantation cassava, which took up more than 5 per cent of land in Negeri Sembilan, posed serious problems of land degradation. The 25 factories that processed the output were all dependent on wood fuel. 55 Cassava plantations, abandoned in just five years, used up forest land even more rapidly than gambier and pepper gardens, based on an average 15-year cycle. 56 In Selangor, cultivation of the crop reputedly contributed more to scarring the landscape than charcoal burning.57 In Negeri Sembilan, cassia cultivation left large swaths of Imperata cylindrica but the colonial state’s revenue interests precluded restriction. In fact, while the less inimical Malay swiddening was discouraged, Chinese cassava planting was backed by attractive incentives, ostensibly to promote ‘productive’ land use. Planted under twenty-five-year leases that included a rent remission, the devastating impact of cassia, particularly in the districts of Sungai Ujung, Gemenceh and Johol, Negeri Sembilan, finally forced government intervention. As of 1892, planting on the same plot for more than two successive years was prohibited.58 By the end of the century the fall in the price for cassava returned some cultivators to pepper and gambier planting, made lucrative by land grants, improved road communication and increased market demand. 59 Only with the introduction of rubber did the Chinese, like the Malays, find a satisfactory alternative to shifting cultivation.60 Cassava planting continued to service a small export market and experienced resurgence during the Japanese Occupation (see Chapter 8).61 Swidden cultivation, in combination with the insatiable wood consumption, put a market value on forest land, once freely available. Although all except alienated land for settlement and mining was technically classified as ‘waste land’,62 forests within them were categorized as either ‘virgin’, when older than 20 years, or ‘secondary’, when younger, their value commensurate with maturity.63 In Perak, consistent with the appreciating value of primary forest, Low initiated the earliest efforts at forest preservation in the Malay States. In 1881 he prohibited the felling of ‘primeval jungle’ (rimba) – except in swampy, low-lying areas suited to paddy planting – and encouraged the conversion of the large swaths of secondary forest generated by shifting cultivation for cash cropping.64 Furthermore, in anticipation of extensive land clearance for plantation agriculture, he proposed planned forestry, with licensed felling for fuel and silvicultural regeneration.65 A core feature of his programme was the creation of reserves, taking advantage of article 6 of the 1897 Land Enactment that allowed land reservation for public purposes. By the end of the nineteenth century, besides some areas of mangrove set aside in the Dindings and Pangkor,

KWells_book_1.fm Page 66 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

66

11 reserves were created in Perak. Faced with a similar shortage of accessible sources of wood, Selangor created 8 reserves.66 TA M I N G T H E L A N D S C A P E

By the turn of the century, visible evidence of scarred landscapes aroused consciousness of the value of forests for soil protection. European planters were quick to blame the Chinese for bad land use and the destruction of some of the finest timbers for the charcoal industry.67 Charcoal manufacturing was calculated to have used an annual average of 200 million kg of timber in Perak, Selangor and Sungai Ujung. Planters lamented that ‘rainfall washed away the fatness of the soil’ wherever the ‘two-legged white ants’ (the Chinese charcoal burners) found their way.68 Yet, the same planters, by the extended scale of clearing for rubber, contributed vastly more to transforming the landscape than those engaged in relatively smaller, dispersed activities. According to the planter, Jacques Alfonse le Doux (‘Tuan Djek’), the large-scale burning during ground preparation for planting rubber generated billowing clouds that blocked the sun for days.69 Ambrose Rathborne, like other planters, employed firing as a cheap and rapid means of land clearance, which apparently also afforded much pleasure. It was ‘a glorious sight’, according to one witness, ‘to see the whole hillside ablaze and the fire and sparks leaping up while listening to the roar and crackle of the flames.’ For days afterwards the embers glowed and simmered.70 Drawing on his broad knowledge of indigenous cultivation in Borneo, Hugh Low realized that large-scale plantation agriculture would fracture the long-evolved pattern of Malay settlement and cultivation. 71 He thus viewed plantation agriculture as a non-indigenous activity that he set out to promote through crop experimentation and the provision of favourable land leases, subsidies and water rights to Europeans and Chinese.72 In 1878, a 400-ha grant of forest land in Perak was made to C.N. Christie of London, primarily for coffee cultivation. Other leases were given on liberal terms to European and local investors for cultivating coffee, tea and sugar, on what was officially defined as ‘waste land’, reserving the government’s right to dispose of timber and other natural produce preceding agricultural conversion.73 Para rubber, which spearheaded plantation agriculture, simultaneously favoured more sustainable forms of smallholder agriculture. It replaced coffee within the mix of crops cultivated by the Malay peasantry for cash and subsistence.74 Peasant rubber-holdings, standing amidst fruit trees and tall undergrowth, were described in a later aerial survey as difficult to distinguish from the surrounding jungle. With the close planting and the tall undergrowth the peasant holding approaches in appearance an abandoned jungle clearing reverting to secondary forest, differing from it only in that there is a single dominant species in the holding instead of the variegated species common in a

KWells_book_1.fm Page 67 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Forests in the Pioneer Era, 1874– c.1900: Boon or Bane?

•

67

rainforest. By duplicating jungle conditions in his holdings, the peasant is following sound conservation principles.75

Smallholder rubber, which retained ground weeds and heavy leaf-fall, took virtually nothing out of the soil and, by keeping out pernicious lalang, was especially suited to degraded land.76 Presenting a stark contrast to the environmentally adapted smallholdings were clean-weeded and geometrically planted Chinese and European rubber estates. The scale and method of clearance preparatory to planting contributed to extensive erosion. It involved firing many hectares of forest, and then uprooting the stumps and roots, to eliminate any disease they might harbour. According to one report, the young plantations presented ‘a queer battlescarred appearance’.77 As rubber was often planted on slopes, the cleared land was then levelled and terraced manually. Even without the aid of mechanical diggers and tractors adopted after World War II for ground preparation, the early estates transformed the landscape. The removal of ground cover reduced interception of rain flow, exposing soils to a high level of tropical weathering and erosion from accelerated surface runoff and leaching. These processes were intensified during the rainy season when planting took place. The misconceived practice of labour-intensive weeding, aimed at reducing nutrient loss to weeds, further set back soil stabilization.78 Though capital-intensive plantation agriculture transgressed European concepts of the Malay idyll,79 the view that the tropical forest must give way to material progress took precedence. The Victorian traveller, Isabella Bird, summing-up her jungle experience in the Peninsula, claimed its ‘loveliness was intoxicating,’ but saw in the green spaces opportunities for British youth, willing to go abroad. Tell some of our friends who have sons with practical good sense, but more muscle than brains, that there are openings in the jungles of Pêrak! 80

Just over a decade following Bird’s visit to the Peninsula, a planter noted with nostalgia: The scenes we read of in the ‘Golden Chersonese’ are not easily met with now-a-days, indeed, without searching … in some remote and inaccessible part of the Peninsula only. 81

However magical and romantic, the tropical jungle remained a commodity for cash and consumption, as attested by the reaction of the French entrepreneur, Brau de Saint-Pol Lias, upon viewing Kuala Kangsar. I cannot cease to marvel at this magnificent country. From this vantage point, the eye can follow the meandering of the majestic river with all its smaller tributaries. Cattle wander in its shallows and goats and a few sheep graze here and there. Sometimes, if your eyes probe the bogs, you may see the horns and huge red nostrils of a buffalo emerge; it is bathing beautifully, while in the faraway distance a wooden bell is heard; it is a stray elephant in the jungle, peacefully eating grass.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 68 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

68

Still, except for the hillside where I am … except for the kampong on the river and a few houses one may see hidden under the shade of the coconut palms, all this country … is absolutely uninhabited, uncultivated. Millions of men could people this fertile land and change its wild vegetation into rich harvests. These plains could yield rice plantations, munificent sugarcane fields, as well as manioc and indigo; these mountains seem made for cocoa, for quinine, for the most precious, the most fruitful products.82

Neatly cultivated cash crops satisfied a new aesthetic sensibility, bonded to a material purpose. The Liberian coffee bushes in the grounds of the Residency at Kuala Kangsar filled the air ‘with the perfume of their white flowers as odoriferous as that of the orange flower’. It was in the same garden that the first rubber trees in the Malay States were planted by Low in 1879 and the seeds distributed for cultivation.83 The Resident’s efforts subscribed to the view among planters that, in contrast to the shifting cultivators who scarred the environment, Europeans nurtured productive landscapes of order and permanence. [W]ho would for a moment compare the dense [belukar] we see upon all our roads or the newly denuded hillside with a verdant, tidily kept coffee estate and escape temporary or perhaps life-long confinement in the most adjacent Bedlam. We may also ask what fate is to befall those who have put their money and give their life-work to these estates now in existence and, no doubt, where returns are coming in, to be extended, when sooner or later the denudation of the forest will affect the rainfall.84 FOREST ADMINIST R ATION AND THE GUTTA-PERCHA CR ISIS

Though the creation of the FMS laid the foundation for the coordination of common policies under a Resident-General, individual States continued to pass separate enactments until the creation in 1909 of a federal legislative organ in the form of the Federal Council. The central concerns of forest administration were the prevention of access to Forest Reserves and watersheds; the regulation and taxation of timber and NTFP extraction; and the protection of selected species.85 The last precluded felling, whether for fuel or charcoal manufacture, of trees listed in the ‘timber roll’. Constituting a classified list of timber species according to their economic value, the timber roll was customarily exhibited at the District Collector’s office.86 Though tin miners continued to enjoy free wood, Malay access to the forest, no longer deemed a right, was whittled down to a concessionary privilege and limited to the needs of domestic consumption. Collection, under a licence from the penghulu, was strictly restricted to prescribed areas within State Land. Barring this, all commercial extraction, whether by firewood cutters, charcoal burners or jungle produce collectors, was subject to the purchase of monthly passes. A ten per cent export tax was also payable on all forest products leaving State boundaries.87

KWells_book_1.fm Page 69 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Forests in the Pioneer Era, 1874– c.1900: Boon or Bane?

•

69

Beyond the core principles of forest management adopted in the FMS, Pahang made additional provisions to safeguard its revenues, derived primarily from forest resources. An 1896 ruling empowered the Resident to protect selected tree species and create Forest Reserves. A distinct feature of Pahang’s early management was the identification of all valuable natural resources, under separate categories of ‘mineral’, ‘vegetable’ and ‘animal’. Licences were made mandatory for shooting elephants, seladang and rhinoceros, highly sought after for tradable ivory and horns. The Malay ‘privilege’ of jungle produce collection for domestic use was subject to more stringent controls in Pahang and was partly compensated by the creation of ‘village reserves’. In view of the practical problems of surveillance in the still largely unexplored jungle terrain, the Resident took the unusual step of rewarding those who reported offences with a percentage of the fines collected.88 The move to upgrade forest management through introducing professional forestry was precipitated by the recognition of gutta-percha as a strategic product at the heart of imperial interests. By the end of the century, Britain owned over 60 per cent of the world’s telegraph cables but, with nearly 80 per cent of Singapore’s gutta-percha exports derived from the Netherlands Indies, was anxious to gain a greater share of the market. The sharp rise in demand for gutta-percha and the concomitant revenue loss from indiscriminate and unregulated taban exploitation claimed urgent attention. Potential shortfalls in gutta-percha supplies threatened UK manufacturing. Especially critical was insulation for submarine telegraph cables for Empire-wide communication. 89 A further consideration that paved the way, as in India, for the introduction of professional forestry was the need for fuel and sleepers to service the railways. 90 Within the FMS, taban was commonest in Pahang and Perak. In the latter State, the superior taban merah (Palaquium gutta), grew best in the moist ranges bordering the coast but penetration by external collectors, following British intervention, is alleged to have contributed to depletion. 91 By the 1880s, the scale of destruction caused by extraction through felling was believed to have left few mature flowering and fruiting stands. Gutta-percha, with South American cinchona, headed the pioneer list of ‘endangered’ exotics that European utilitarian imperatives set out to rescue from the alleged profligacy of natives.92 In 1881, in a move to save the taban from likely extinction in the State, Low imposed a blanket prohibition on unlicensed tree felling and recommended a ban on gutta-percha exports.93 These efforts at protection were frustrated by the difficulties of apprehending speculators who, spurred by high returns on the open market, foraged extensively. In 1891 Singapore’s gutta-percha exports exceeded 4.6 million kg. 94 By 1898, compared to a decrease in the value of coffee and coconut exports from the Colony, the value of gutta-percha and other rubbers increased by over $4.75 million, well above the $3.75 million increase from tin exports. 95 As the price for gutta-percha rose dramatically, the trail of depletion through Perak and

KWells_book_1.fm Page 70 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

70

Johor led towards the still unexplored forests of the Peninsula’s east coast. The value of Pahang’s own exports appreciated during 1897–98 by almost half. It probably included collections from Kelantan where the lower prices paid under the Sultan’s monopoly encouraged smuggling over the border. The trade was sufficiently lucrative to generate a boom in licensed collecting. 96 With local market prices at $200 per pikul (60 kg) and saleable in Singapore at $400-$500, Malays in some parts of Pahang abandoned paddy cultivation en masse and joined Orang Asli in the collecting spree. Thwarted in his efforts at shaping a peasant agricultural economy, Resident Hugh Clifford (1896–99) declared the boom in the gutta-percha trade a curse to Pahang. The peasantry, he claimed, were led astray by the cash and grain advanced by Chinese entrepreneurs. 97 In Kelantan and Terengganu, Borneo Dayaks added to the rampage. 98 Guttapercha collection, as in Kelantan during the 1888 famine, 99 may well have been part of a survival strategy for countering severe El Niño events that punctuated the later decades of the century. To conserve gutta-percha stocks in the face of rising prices, the High Commissioner contemplated imposing a monopoly in the FMS. He considered, ‘if it would be possible without inhumanity or hardship to the Sakai and other wild tribes to prohibit the collection’ in certain locations. 100 In 1900, Perak banned extraction and Negeri Sembilan followed suit two years later. 101 As the enforcement of a total moratorium was difficult, gutta-percha production was restricted to extraction from twigs and leaves, with an increased levy payable on exports.102 Control over the trade proved particularly problematic in Pahang. British officers were powerless against the continuing forays of gutta-percha hunters from the adjoining States of Terengganu and Kelantan into the sparsely populated fringes of the State where taban was still abundant. Collectors from the Kemaman and Dungun areas of Terengganu, for example, regularly found their way into the upper Tekai, a tributary of the Tembeling River in Pahang, where extraction was hard to monitor.103 An 1895 ban on gutta-percha collection in Pahang, which merely resulted in cross-border smuggling, was revoked.104 W.H. Treacher, the Acting Resident-General,105 calculated that only through breaking the grip of the Chinese middleman could the long-term interest of taban protection be addressed,106 reversing the existing trend of one-off extraction through felling.107 These laudable aims were compromised by fears of losing the trade in gutta-percha altogether and Pahang remained wedded to licensed farming, at the risk of depletion.108 Only in Perak were steps taken to dislodge the Chinese middlemen. F.W. Douglas, the Acting Forest Officer, devised a scheme declaring gutta-percha a government monopoly, with purchases made directly from Orang Asli collectors. It was envisaged that by cultivating the forest people – ‘the finest set of natural guards’ – as commercial partners, better control over the trade might be established, and the benefits of putting quality over quantity impressed upon them. 109 G.B. Cerruti, an Italian who had been working amongst the Senoi of Perak, was

KWells_book_1.fm Page 71 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Forests in the Pioneer Era, 1874– c.1900: Boon or Bane?

•

71

employed to mediate with the Orang Asli of Batang Padang and promote the protection of gutta-percha and other forms of rubber. 110 Though Frank Swettenham, Low’s successor in Perak, is thought to have looked on science ‘with anything but favour’, he was driven by the utilitarian ends of forestry to promote preservation.111 His enthusiasm for tree cultivation was consonant with the tenets of German forestry, premised on the notion that forests ought to be nurtured and not considered the gift of nature.112 On becoming Resident-General (1896–1901) he used his influence to reserve existing taban stands in Perak and promote the planting not only of taban but also other valuable timbers, especially cengal and merbuk.113 He also pioneered reforestation in Perak and in the scarred mining landscapes of Selangor, with the dual objective of arresting erosion and generating wood. 114 The interest of Swettenham and other Peninsular administrators in forest and tree preservation conjoined metropolitan ambitions of exploring and developing colonial resources. In 1888, the Imperial Institute in South Kensington was created with scientific and commercial goals. Much of the Colonial Office’s initiatives with reference to these matters was inspired by Joseph Hooker’s sonin-law and successor at Kew, William Thiselton-Dyer (1885–1905), botanical adviser to the Secretary of States for the Colonies.115 Dyer, like the Hookers before him, was concerned over deforestation and its predicted impact on climate and the depletion and possible extinction of economic species, especially Palaquium.116 Economic motives were given an added impetus by imperial rivalries. In 1891 the French proposed creating plantations in Indochina to remedy the gutta-percha shortage which had aborted plans for laying a cable line from France to Algeria.117 To Dyer’s dismay, his plans for the protection and propagation of taban in the Peninsula were threatened by the retrenchment plans of Acting Governor, W.E. Maxwell, which included abolition of the Forest Department in the Straits Settlements, transferring its functions to the Land Department. The trade depression, combined with the long drawn out Pahang Rebellion118 had evidently put a damper on the Colony’s earlier support for Kew’s crusade for forest protection. The Colony’s small forests did not warrant large administrative outlays for collecting modest revenues in the form of timber royalties and licence fees for honey, wax, bamboo and gutta-percha collection. The consequent lack of proper surveillance undermined forest protection. 119 In 1890, only 9 percent of the Colony’s land area constituted Forest Reserves.120 In Melaka, with by far the biggest area of forest in the Straits Settlements, only 20,000 ha was under reservation,121 the remainder largely laid to waste by the cultivation of a fastgrowing variety of cassava.122 Cheap timber imports from Bengkalis and the availability of local mangrove wood were disincentives to reforestation. Given the restricted extent of dry-land forest in the Straits Settlements as a whole, administrators turned to the still intact swamp forests, which were brought under reservation. In addition, in Melaka, the fast-growing peat-swamp gelam forest was extended through planting.123

KWells_book_1.fm Page 72 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

72

Notwithstanding the poor prospect for sustainable wood production in the Straits Settlements, marginalization of forest management by the retrenchments raised metropolitan anxieties over possible depletion and extinction of economically valuable species, principally taban. The joint representation made to the Colonial Office by Kew and the Linnean Society resulted in the revocation of the proposed abolition of Ridley’s post.124 However, the day-to-day management of the forests was transferred to Land Officers, deemed better informed about affairs on the ground than the Assistant Superintendents of Gardens, able to manage only an occasional inspection of reserves.125 This view was opposed by Dyer who, quoting the Straits Intelligence of 15 September 1883,126 attributed the destruction of water catchments, land denudation and consequent river pollution to the error of placing forest management under the Land Office. Frustrated by Singapore’s flagging commitment to forest conservancy, he claimed that in no part of the Empire was there ‘a more deplorable waste of natural resources’.127 At the root of Kew’s censure of the Malayan government was its alleged failure to protect and generate taban. The ill-feeling which the episode created between the Colony’s botanists and land officers provoked the perceptive remark of C.W.S. Kynnersley, the Resident Councillor of Melaka, that the time was ripe for a ‘real’ and independent Forest Department under the control of ‘a specialist chosen not for his knowledge of Botany and Natural Science but a man trained in the great Indian Forest Department’.128 In an attempt to force a shift in policy, Dyer appealed to Lord Ripon who held Kew’s role in colonial botanical research in high regard. 129 Ripon lent a sympathetic ear but made no promise of immediate action. His Lordship (Lord Ripon) notes with much interest what you say in your letter of 10 October as to the future Gutta-percha supply of the World, and may possibly take an opportunity of returning to the subject, which is one of greatest importance although it has little, if anything, to do with the Colony of the Straits Settlements proper, the Colony having for years past practically ceased to contribute to the world supply.130

The Governor of Singapore stood firmly by the home government’s view that existing arrangements for forest administration sufficed.131 Forest management remained on the back burner until swept to the forefront by the 1896 Federation. In the light of the Federation’s aim of creating centralized departments, its architect, Resident-General Frank Swettenham, as well as W.H. Treacher and H. Clifford, Residents respectively of the forest-rich States of Perak and Pahang, recognized the merits of centralized and coordinated management by a professional forest service. The plan cohered with the call made in 1895 by the Colonial Secretary, Lord Joseph Chamberlain, to extend railway communication for servicing the boom in the tin industry and the allround economic expansion anticipated under Federation.132 As accessible sources of wood were fast declining, the means for transporting supplies to mines and settlements from further a field made railways a top priority. Moreover, a

KWells_book_1.fm Page 73 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Forests in the Pioneer Era, 1874– c.1900: Boon or Bane?

•

73

guaranteed supply of sleepers and fuel for the construction and maintenance of the railways was contingent upon professional forest management. The urgency of upgrading forest administration in the FMS was such that the proposed retrenchment of Ridley in Singapore had been considered an opportunity to engage him as Superintendent of the forests of Perak and Selangor. Revocation of the proposal led to alternative arrangements for setting up an independent FMS forest service. As of 1896 Ridley divided his time between the Colony and Selangor,133 while A.B. Stephens, a former planter and civil servant,134 served in Perak. In 1900, B.H.F. Barnard, a railway audit clerk and A.L.M. Scott were appointed Forest Officers in Selangor and Negeri Sembilan, respectively, but Pahang had none. In the case of Barnard, he spent a short spell in India and Burma ‘to pick up useful tips’ to make up for his lack of professional training. Nonetheless, bearing in mind that the moist forests were very different from the deciduous forests of the mainland, Ridley recognized that local experience weighed more importantly for pioneer forestry in the Peninsula. 135 Once wood was identified with development imperatives in the FMS, Dyer was able to link metropolitan concerns over taban protection with the immediate interests of the Malayan government. In renewing his petition to the Colonial Office, Dyer could rely on Chamberlain, a keen gardener and ardent supporter of the Kew Gardens.136 Not least, Kew incorporated within its botanical network an energetic lobby of Malayan administrators, including J.P Rodger ex-Resident of Pahang (1888–96) and a strong advocate of forest protection. In 1899, a report submitted by the incumbent Resident, A. Butler, provided Dyer the necessary evidence to press for a change in policy. Butler stressed the urgency of arresting depletion of Palaquium, calling attention to its slow growth, taking some 30 years to reach maturity.137 Given Dyer’s unstinting commitment to arresting taban depletion and his less than tactful personality, Butler’s alarming report, supported by rumour that there were barely five sizable taban extant in the Colony,138 was tantamount to waving a red rag at a bull. The Kew Director launched a tirade on the government in Singapore. Countering the charge, J.A. Swettenham, Colonial Secretary in Singapore – less committed to the arboreal interests of his brother, Frank – pointed out that any additional investment in managing the relic forests of the Colony would make little economic sense.139 However, Dyer successfully convinced the Colonial Office that the spectre of taban depletion now stalked the Peninsula’s hinterland.140 The threat to the potential development of Peninsular supplies had profound implications for the imperial cable network. The gutta perch crisis brought to a head the all-round conviction that forest management was crucial for development in the FMS. The Colonial Office urged immediate action. Mr.Butler’s report is a clear and able statement of the position. It confirms the generally held belief that the Gutta Percha tree is undergoing a slow but certain process of extermination wherever it occurs.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 74 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

74

The Colonial Office called for demarcation of taban stands and their close surveillance by trained officers and guards.141Chamberlain’s decision to set up a professional forest service, conveyed via the gutta-percha-lined telegraphic cable to Singapore, was symbolic of the critical link between Malayan Palaquium and the exigencies of imperial communication.142 Dyer had successfully made his point that the Peninsula’s biological realm had a crucial role to play in advancing the imperial economy. TOWARDS PROFESSIONAL FOREST R Y

In 1900, H.C. Hill, then Inspector General of Forests in the North-West Provinces and Oudh in India, visited the Peninsula to make recommendations for a combined forest service for the Straits Settlements and the FMS. 143 With no personal experience of the Peninsula, he arrived at an unfortunate time when the local advocates of forest conservation – Swettenham, J.P. Rodger, E. W. Birch and A.B. Stephens – were all on leave. This set-back was remedied in part by a useful dossier of information prepared by Treacher, the Acting Resident-General, based on comments and reports by Ridley and others.144 Having completed his survey of the Straits Settlements, Hill proceeded, first, to the Dindings 145 and Perak and, then, to Selangor. He finally entered the Semangkok Pass (‘The Gap’) into Pahang and navigated the Pahang and Rompin rivers.146 Hill’s ‘Report on Forest Conservancy’ (1900)147 generally endorsed existing policies, based largely on the Indian and Burmese models. This included control over all unalienated forests setting aside pre-existing indigenous claims, except rights of way and access to water and fruit collection. 148 Malay customary claims were considered adequately met by the ‘privilege’ of access to forest resources, strictly for domestic use.149 Under the recommended plan, regulated extraction from ‘unreserved forests’ was proposed for servicing domestic consumption and generating revenues for the upkeep of ‘reserved forests’. 150 Although taban protection was the home government’s immediate reason for extending professional forestry to the Peninsula, Hill’s proposals took account of the forest economy in the long term. He thus ruled out artificial regeneration of taban at the expense of other commercial species.151 Recommended was natural regeneration, supported by the elimination of competing species within existing taban stands,152 a principle which became the basis for Malayan silviculture. In addition to a moratorium on the felling of taban and rambung (Ficus elastica), a government monopoly was imposed on the more valuable items of forest produce.153 Not least, Hill emphasized sustainable mangrove wood production as a cheap source of fuel.154 Hill’s most significant contribution pertained to restructuring taxation, consonant with overall development in the Peninsula. Identifying wood ‘shortage’ with the attraction of labour to higher wage earnings in the tin industry, he proposed putting the timber industry on a competitive footing. One means was

KWells_book_1.fm Page 75 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Forests in the Pioneer Era, 1874– c.1900: Boon or Bane?

•

75

by removing constraints on inter-State trade in wood. In Perak the prohibition of cengal exports had artificially depressed prices, creating a State-based cartel. Selangor, on the other hand, was in the curious position of importing sleeper wood from Australia.155 Revocation of the existing export tax, argued Hill, would facilitate the movement of wood between the States, to the advantage of industry and consistent with the federal principle of pooling resources for development. To make up for revenue loss from abolition of the export tax, higher revenues were expected from timber licences charged according to the number of trees felled, replacing the pre-felling licences hitherto issued. A postharvest royalty was also payable, determined by timber weight or pole size, replacing cheaper computation by bole numbers.156 Revenue considerations justified withdrawal at this juncture of free wood to Chinese mines, considered sufficiently well established by now to afford extraction licences. 157 Hill’s more stringent tax proposals encouraged the evolution of colonial forest policy premised on linking revenue extraction with effective control and management of forests. Nevertheless, the Malayan administration departed from the existing Indian and Burmese models by insisting upon a clear separation between the Land and Forest Departments. This policy was based on the belief that revenue officers did not make good forest officers and, furthermore, that a separation of the two functions was essential for avoiding a conflict of interest between conservation and revenue collection.158 The constitution of a separate and independent Forest Department was well calculated in view of the importance of industry over agriculture in the FMS economy. A core feature of colonial forestry was the irrevocable link between forest protection and sustainable wood production. In accordance with this aim, Hill recommended ‘a practical and scientific system’ of silvicultural management that would give logged forests the best chance of regeneration. 159 Yet there were issues that demonstrated the complex dynamics of sustainability. Outstanding was the problem of timber wastage through forest burning, preceding mining and plantation operations.160 The practice threw into sharp relief the anomaly of an apparent ‘timber shortage’ against a background of ‘economic’ firing, arising from the lack of access to free wood from land alienated for agriculture. These problems identified by Hill, represented fundamental issues of management that vexed foresters in the coming decades. Hill’s pragmatic approach to revenue extraction strengthened the conviction of F.A. Swettenham, now Governor and High Commissioner (1901–04), about the value of investing in a professional forest service.161 British Residents, committed primarily to the interests of their respective States, were no longer considered ideal custodians of the forests for development within the FMS as a whole. In 1901, following Hill’s recommendations for appointing a professionally trained forester of some age and standing, A.M. Burn-Murdoch of the Burma Forest Service162 was made Conservator of the forests of the FMS and

KWells_book_1.fm Page 76 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

76

SS.163 In addition to finally appointing a Forest Officer in Pahang, plans were made for recruiting professionally trained foresters and rangers throughout the FMS.164 The Conservator, who exercised full executive control over all forests, was directly responsible to the Resident-General (later the Chief Secretary) in the FMS and the Colonial Secretary in the Straits Settlements.165 Within the FMS, the concept of a centralized, independent Forest Department was fully in line with Swettenham’s federal principle for promoting greater coordination, economy and efficiency, with the more advanced States assisting the less developed. 166 While under ‘advisory’ rule individual States retained sovereign powers over all land, including forests, the Conservator’s executive authority undermined the hitherto pre-eminent influence of the Resident,167 allowing for potential tension. Working with the respective Assistant State Conservators, the Conservator consulted the Resident only when forest matters impinged on other sectors of State administration, referring any disputes that arose to the Resident-General/ Chief Secretary. As the extensive forests of the Malay States took centre stage, the relic forests of the Colony continued to be administered as an integral part of the scientific and recreational services of the Botanic Gardens in Singapore and Penang. Though relieved of the task of forest management, Ridley contributed extensively towards advancing forest botany while, at the same time, building the reputation of the Singapore Gardens as the premier centre of British botanical research in the region. Ridley’s international Gardens’ Bulletin, which in 1912 replaced the Agricultural Bulletin founded in 1891, signalled an important stage in the development of systematic botany in the Peninsula.168 As C.G.G.J. van Steenis has noted, ‘All the time the responsibility for the taxonomic research work in the whole of Malesia virtually hinged on two systematists’, Ridley in Malaya and T. Valeton in Bogor.169 The extensive collections Ridley made,170 helped by his assistants in Melaka and Penang, culminated in his five-volume Flora of the Malay Peninsula (1922–25), based on the preliminary work, Materials for a Flora of the Malay Peninsula, compiled by George King.171 This did not detract from his contribution to applied botany as evident in his successful introduction of Para rubber to the Peninsula172 As illustrated by the careers of Low and Ridley, botanical research, which was as important to plantation agriculture as to forest conservation, represented the ambiguity of early Malayan development. The effects of deforestation on landscape, climate and plant species informed colonial discourse even before the inauguration of professional forestry. Environmental protection, however, was subsumed within the utilitarian aims of revenue and wood production. The laws and regulations imposed towards achieving this end were to have wide-ranging social and political implications for the evolution of society in the Peninsula.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 77 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Forests in the Pioneer Era, 1874– c.1900: Boon or Bane?

•

77

NOTES 1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22

Perak State Council Minutes, 3 Nov. 1789, in P.L. Burns (selected and intro.), Papers on Malay Subjects (First published 1907, revised 1923, and edited by R. J. Wilkinson), Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1971, p. 208. The extension of British Protection was marked by the appointment of British Residents in Perak (1874), Sungai Ujung (1874), Selangor (1875), Pahang (1888) and Negeri Sembilan (1889). For an account of the introduction of the Residential system see Sadka, The Protected Malay States, pp. 38–49; Andaya and Andaya, A History of Malaysia, pp. 160–177. Andaya and Andaya, A History of Malaysia, pp.143–153. Burns (ed.), The Journal of J.W.W. Birch, pp. 68–99, 381, 387. Ibid., p. 244. State Council Order and Regulation, 25 Oct. 1894, Government of Negri Sembilan, Orders and Regulations, Kuala Lumpur: Selangor Govt. Press, 1896, p.39. See List of Export Duties in Burns (ed.), The Journal of J.W.W. Birch, p. 381. Ibid., p. 110. Ibid., pp. 68–69, 78. In 1826, by an unratified treaty, part of the Dindings, together with Pangkor, was ceded to the British and a strip of the mainland added by the 1874 Pangkor Treaty. Perak collected a monthly tax of 3 per cent from sawyers and woodcutters, and royalty on converted timber, at the rate of 15 percent on heavy-hardwood and 10 per cent on the light hardwood meranti (Shorea spp.). In Negeri Sembilan, sawyers were obliged to purchase monthly licences and obtain additional permits for cutting the prized cengal or penak (Neobalanocarpus heimii) and tembusu (Fagraea spp.). Order of 18 May 1892, Negri Sembilan Laws, vol. I, 1883–99, Singapore: Fraser & Neave, 1904, p. 127. E. Sadka (ed.), ‘The journal of Sir Hugh Low, Perak, 1877’, JMBRAS, 27, iv (1954) p. 20; Lim, Peasants and their Agricultural Economy, p. 26 n. 33. Sadka, The Protected Malay States, p. 299. Ibid., pp. 286–287. The son of the founder of the nursery at Clapton, Low went to Borneo as a naturalist at the age of nineteen. Beginning in 1845, his long service in Borneo under the Brook administration gave him enormous scope for developing his wide-spanning interests, including languages, botany and ethnography, as attested in his publication, Sarawak, its Inhabitants and Products (London, 1848). Van Steenis-Kruseman, Flora Malesiana, I, pp. 479–480; V. Narayayanaswami, ‘Provenance of early Malayan plant collectors’, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, n.s. 27 (1931) pp. 329–331. Wray, who entered the Perak civil service in 1881, was appointed the following year as Superintendent of the Government Hill Gardens. He was later made Curator of the Perak Museum and rose to be Director of the FMS Museums (1904–08). For a detailed account, see I.H. Evans, ‘Perak Museum’, in C.W. Harrison (ed.), An Illustrated Guide to the Federated Malay States, 1923, London, 1923. Reprinted (intro.) P. Kratoska, Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1985. pp. 262–285 Gamble was Conservator of Forests in the Madras Presidency and, later, Director of the Imperial Forestry School at Dehra Dun. Curiously, King is not mentioned among the early contributors to botanical exploration in Ridley’s introduction to the Flora of the Malay Peninsula. Narayayanaswami, ‘Provenance of early Malayan plant collectors,’ p. 331; G. King and J.S.Gamble, ‘Materials for a Flora of the Malay Peninsula’, Published in the Journal of the Bengal Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1889–1915, 5 vols. ; J.G. Watson, ‘Some Materials for the Forest History of Malaya’, Malayan Forester, 13, (1950), ii, 64–65; Van SteenisKruseman, Flora Malesiana, I, pp. 281–282. Perak State Council Minutes, 3 Nov. 1879, p. 206. Ibid. Ibid. Constituted under the 1984 National Forestry Act as a Permanent Forest Estate (PRF), this protected area in the Larut Hills now comprises 6,867 ha, of which 2,247 ha are considered ‘virgin’ jungle. EPU-WWFM. Study on the Development of Hill Stations, Final Report, 2001, vol. II, p. 4.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 78 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

78

23 R. Heussler, British Rule in Malaya: The Malayan Civil Service and its Predecessors, 1867– 1942, Oxford: Clio, 1981, pp. 102–103. 24 R. Guha, ‘An early environmental debate: The making of the 1878 Forest Act’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, 27, i (1990) pp. 67–68. 25 See pp. 12–14 regarding the claims of Malay rulers. Just as pre-emption and monopoly were imposed where there was opportunity, tithe on grain was collected when agricultural settlement expanded in the Kerian district of Perak. In Kedah, the ruler’s claims to land rent remained nominal until, 1883, when a fixed rent was declared. Sadka, The Protected Malay States, p. 340; Sharom Ahmad, Tradition and Change in a Malay State: A Study of the Economic and Political Development of Kedah, 1878–1923, Monograph 12, Kuala Lumpur: MBRAS, 1984, p. 37. 26 Sadka, The Protected Malay States, p. 343. 27 Perak State Council Minutes, 10 Sept. 1877, p. 159; 11 Sept 1877, p 163. 28 Ibid., 18 Nov. 1879; 19 Oct. 1882, pp. 210, 260. The supply of attap for the tobacco plantations in Deli, Sumatra, provided a temporary boost to Perak’s nipa industry until its collapse in 1891, severely reducing revenues from NTFP. Perak State Council Minutes, 19 Oct. 1882, p. 260; Hill, Rice in Malaya, pp. 107, 115. 29 Perak State Council Minutes, 3 Nov. 1879, p. 207. 30 F. Swettenham, Report on Selangor, Parliamentary Papers, Colonial, LIII (1875) p. 165. 31 Cited in P. Barr, Taming the Jungle: The Men Who Made British Malaya, London: Secker & Warburg, 1977, p. 92. 32 Anon [‘Weary Yet Hopeful’], ‘The proposed regulations relating to smelting houses and charcoal burners’, Selangor Journal, II, No. 7, 15 Dec. 1893, p. 104. 33 A.M. Burn-Murdoch, Conservator of Forests, ‘Forests of Malaya’, in A. Wright and H.A Cartwright (ed.) Twentieth Century Impressions of British Malaya, London: Lloyd’s Great Britain, 1908, p. 329. 34 Wong Lin Ken, The Malayan Tin Industry to 1914, Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1965, pp. 157–159. 35 Burn-Murdoch, ‘Forests of Malaya’ p. 330. 36 Tunku Shamsul Bahrin, ‘The pattern of Indonesian migration and settlement in Malaya’, Asian Studies, 5, ii (1967) pp. 233–257. 37 Governor’s Statement, Legislative Council, 15 Sept. 1874, Parliamentary Papers, Colonial and British Possessions, XLV (1874) p. 883. 38 Potter, ‘Banjarese’, p. 272; Sadka, The Protected Malay States, p. 328 39 Perak State Council Minutes, 3 Nov. 1879, p.206. 40 D.E. Short and J. Jackson, ‘The origins of an irrigation policy in Malaya: Review of developments prior to the establishment of the Drainage and Irrigation Department’, JMBRAS, 44, i (1971) p. 89; Lim, Peasants and their Agricultural Economy, p. 61 n. 50. 41 Sadka, The Protected Malay States, p. 353. 42 Initial steps taken in 1895 for irrigating 20,000 ha to alleviate the agricultural crisis in Kerian were completed only in 1906. A similar plan for Kuala Selangor was shelved for reasons of cost. Short and Jackson, ‘The origins of an irrigation policy in Malaya’, p. 93; Sadka, The Protected Malay States, p. 352. 43 Lim, Peasants and their Agricultural Economy, p. 65 n. 100. 44 W. E. Maxwell, ‘The Malay Peninsula: Its resources and prospects’, in Proceedings of the Royal Colonial Institute, London: The Institute, 1892, p. 24. 45 Settled cultivation in Pahang was restricted largely to areas behind the levees of the Pahang River, in the Temerluh district. Elsewhere, in the Pahang valley, tenggala or dry-rice plough cultivation was practised, using zebu or humped oxen for ploughing. Cant, Pahang, p. 36; Hill, Rice in Malaya, p. 158. Tenggala, practised also in Kelantan and Terengganu, was described as ‘intermediate’ between permanent cultivation and shifting cultivation, based on a seven-year cycle, with fallow periods never exceeding 3 years. G.A. De Moubray, ‘Sungai Manik irrigation scheme’, Malayan Agricultural Journal, April 1936, in Mss Ind. Ocn S 159, G.A. Moubray Papers, Rhodes House, Oxford; Lim, Peasants and their Agricultural Economy, p. 37. 46 H. Conway Belfield, Annual Report, Selangor, 2 April 1901, Report on the FMS, Parliamentary Papers, LXVI (1902) p. 912. With previously settled areas such as Kuala Selangor

KWells_book_1.fm Page 79 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Forests in the Pioneer Era, 1874– c.1900: Boon or Bane?

47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

55 56 57 58 59

60

61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73

74

•

79

ruined by the civil war, only Hulu Langat could boast substantial paddy cultivation. Extensive areas of forest, particularly around Kuala Lumpur, were cleared for dry rice and cash crops. In Kuala Langat even the swamp forests, along a 16–20 km strip bordering the river, gave way to swiddens. Sadka. The Protected Malay States, p. 352; Hill, Rice in Malaya, pp. 150, 153. Perak State Council Minutes, 3 Nov. 1879, p. 206. Hill, Rice in Malaya, pp. 96–97, 142. ‘Reports on the Federated Malay States, 1900’, Parliamentary Papers, LXVI (1902) p. 869. P. Kratoska, ‘Peripatetic peasant and land tenure in British Malaya’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 16, ii (1985) p. 18. Lim, Origins of a Colonial Economy, p. 65 n.96 & 97. By 1906 some 20,000 ha in Kerian were brought under irrigation. Short and Jackson, ‘The origins of an irrigation policy in Malaya’, p. 93; Lim, Peasants and their Agricultural Economy, pp. 43–45, 74–75, 80–81. See pp. 37–38. J. Pelzer, ‘Swidden cultivation in Southeast Asia: Historical, ecological and economic perspectives’, in Kunstadter et al. (eds), Farmers in the Forest, p. 273; M. Dove, ‘The agroecological mythology of the Javanese and the political economy of Indonesia’, Indonesia, 39 (1985) pp. 8–9. Jackson, Planters and Speculators pp.62–66. Ibid., p. 78. Anon, [‘Jungle Wallah’], ‘Charcoal fiends’, Selangor Journal, II, No. 12, 23 Feb. 1894, pp. 183– 184. Jackson, Planters and Speculators, p. 79. In 1896, Selangor produced over 1.1 million kg of gambier and 1.3 million kg of pepper. Three years later, Negeri Sembilan produced almost 2.2 million kg of gambier and over 3.6 million kg of pepper, attesting to the increased pace of forest clearance. Jackson, Planters and Speculators, Figs. 13 & 14. Jackson, Planters and Speculators, pp. 70–71. In fact, Tan Chang Yuan, a cassava planter in Melaka, was among the first to cultivate Para rubber from seeds supplied by Ridley. B. Tinsley, Singapore Green: A History and Guide to the Botanic Gardens, Singapore: Times Books International, 1983, p. 31. Jackson, Planters and Speculators, p. 81–82. Sadka, The Protected Malay States, p. 341. Negri Sembilan Laws, 1883–1903, I, pp. 130–131. Perak State Council Minutes, 10 June 1881, p. 237. Ibid., 3 Nov. 1879, pp. 207–208. Memo, W.H. Treacher, Acting Resident-General, 30 May 1900, CO 273/ 263/40314. Major F. McNair, Perak and the Malays: Sarong and Kris, London: Tinsley Brothers, 1878, p. 73; Rathborne, Camping and Tramping in Malaya, p. 138. See also pp. 41 and 66. Anon, ‘…Smelting houses and charcoal burners’, p. 103. S. Dobbs, Tuan Djek: A Biography, Singapore: Times Books International, 2002, p. 19. Cited in Barr, Taming the Jungle, pp. 90–91. M. Brau de Saint-Pol Lias, cited in Barr, Taming the Jungle, pp. 91–92. Lim, Origins of a Colonial Economy, pp. 118–119. Perak State Council Minutes, 28 Oct. 1878; 28 Feb. 1879, pp. 174–176, 183–184. Under the Perak Land Code of 1879, State Land was divided into the categories only of Waste Land, Malay Reservation, Building Land and Mining Reserves. Waste Land included forest land, alienable for agriculture. Similar leases from Waste Land served the ‘coffee craze’, in Selangor, led by T.H. Hill, a planter from Ceylon. Rathborne, Lim Swee King and members of the Malay nobility joined the speculation. In the 1890s coffee covered about 2,800 ha in Selangor. In addition, a single 5,000 ha lease was made to Yap Ah Loy and another 1,200 ha to Jeang Heng Kin for cassava planting, despite anticipated soil exhaustion within 7 years. Sadka, The Protected Malay States, p. 344 n. 2; ‘Klang as it is’, Selangor Journal, II, No. 18, 18 May 1894, pp. 288–289; ‘Notes of the Resident’s visit to the districts in Selangor’, Selangor Journal, II, Pt VI, No. 25, 24 Aug. 1894, p. 415. Tunku Shamsul, ‘The pattern of Indonesian migration’, p. 242.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 80 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

80

75 Ooi Jin Bee, ‘Rural development in tropical areas with special reference to Malaya’, Journal of Tropical Geography, 12 (1959) p. 146. 76 P.T. Bauer,‘The workings of the rubber regulation’, in T.H. Silcock (ed.), Readings in Malayan Economics, Singapore: Eastern University Press, 1961, p. 255. 77 E.J. McNaughton, ‘Plantation rubber in Malaya’, British Malaya, 11, iv (1936) p. 89. 78 W.N.C. Belgrave, ‘The effects of cover crops on soil moisture’, The Malayan Agricultural Journal, 18 (1930) p. 492. 79 See Sadka, The Protected Malay States, pp. 205–207. 80 I. Bird, The Golden Chersonese and the Way Thither, (First published London, 1883), Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1967, pp. 310, 358. 81 Anon, ‘…Smelting houses and charcoal burners’, p. 103. 82 Barr, Taming of the Jungle, p. 93. Apart from the Residency Gardens, Low established other gardens in Teluk Anson and on Maxwell’s Hill. 83 Sadka (ed.), ‘The journal of Sir Hugh Low’, p. 20. Of the small percentage of Para rubber seeds from Brazil successfully germinated in the Kew Gardens, 22 were received at the Botanic Gardens in Singapore, which sent seedlings to Low in Perak. 84 Anon, ‘… Smelting houses and charcoal burners,’ p. 103. 85 Prohibited under species protection was the destruction of mangroves and the felling of valuable trees, including rambung (Ficus elastica) and trees that produced resin (damar) and wood-oil. In the collection of nipa palm, harvesters were obliged to leave at least one leaf, besides the central shoot, to prevent destruction of the plant. 86 ‘Timber and Jungle Produce Rules’, State of Negri Sembilan: Enactments Passed in Council, 1897, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1899, pp. 253–254. 87 ‘Ibid., pp. 251, 255. 88 ‘Products on state land’, Enactment 1V of 1896, Pahang Laws, 1889–97, Selangor Govt. Press, 1898, pp.65–66. 89 P.M. Kennedy, ‘Imperial cable communication and strategy, 1870–1914’, English Historical Review, 86 (1971) pp. 740–741; Potter, ‘A forest produce out of control,’ p. 295. 90 Stebbing, The Forests of India, I, p. 522. In the Peninsula, the first railways built during 1885– 95, linking the mines to the ports, ran between Taiping and Port Weld; Ipoh and Teluk Anson; Kuala Lumpur and Kelang; and Sungai Ujung and Port Dickson. 91 Burkill, Economic Products, II, p. 1656. 92 R. Drayton, Nature’s Government: Science, Imperial Britain, and the ‘Improvement’ of the World, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000, pp. 236, 238. 93 Lim Teck Gee, Origins of a Colonial Economy, p. 144. Even in the less accessible parts of upper Perak only inferior varieties such as getah rambung were reported to be present. As curator of the nascent Perak Museum, L. Wray assisted Low in identifying and describing taban. L. Wray, ‘Gutta-producing trees’, Letter to H. Low, JSBRAS, 12 (1883) p. 208. 94 Sir Cecil Clementi-Smith to Colonial Office, 18 July 1891, ‘Malaya: Gutta-percha, 1876– 1904’, Misc., RBGK. 95 Report on the Straits Settlements, 1898, and Report on Forest Reserves. CO 273/248/28812. 96 The collection was licensed at $3,575 per month to 4 separate farms. The farms, in turn, distributed monthly permits at $1 through their agents, usually the penghulu. Memo of Acting Resident-General, 30 May 1900, CO 273, 263/40314. 97 Sadka, The Protected Malay States, p. 356 n.2. 98 Acting British Resident, Pahang, to Resident-General, 23 Nov. 1899, CO 273/263/40314. 99 Sadka, The Protected Malay States, p. 328. 100 High Commissioner to Resident-General, 3 Nov. 1899, CO 273/ 63/40314. 101 Order of 18 May 1882, Negri Sembilan Laws, p. 127 102 Order of 25 Feb. 1893, Negri Sembilan Laws, p. 13. 103 Minute, Acting Resident Pahang, Enclosure, Resident-General, Selangor, 30 Nov. 1899, CO 273/ 263/40314. 104 Enactment II of 1897, Pahang Laws, 1896–97, p. 24; Hugh Clifford, Resident, Pahang, Annual Report, 4 May 1901, Parliamentary Papers, LXVI (1902) p. 942.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 81 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Forests in the Pioneer Era, 1874– c.1900: Boon or Bane?

•

81

105 Having entered the Labuan service in 1871, Treacher was appointed Governor of North Borneo in 1881. In 1888, he became Secretary to the Government in Perak and subsequently served as Resident successively in Selangor and Perak before succeeding Frank Swettenham as Resident-General. 106 Resident to High Commissioner, 12 March 1900, CO 273/265/2634. 107 Acting High Commissioner to Resident-General, 28 Dec. 1899, CO 273/265/2634. 108 Acting British Resident, Pahang, to Resident-General, 23 Nov. 1899, CO 273/263/40314. 109 F.W. Douglas, Acting Forest Officer, 9 April 1900, CO 273/263/40314. 110 Cerruti was employed on a monthly salary of $125, with claims to a 10-per-cent commission on profits from gutta-percha sales. W.H. Treacher, Acting Resident-General to High Commissioner, 8 Aug. 1900, CO 273, 263/40314. F. Swettenham to Lucas, 11 May 1901, CO 273/267/19365. 111 L. Wray, Taiping, to Dyer, 21 April 1885, Directors’ Correspondence, 168, RBGK. 112 Grove, ‘The island and the history of environmentalism’, p. 161; J. Radkau, ‘The wordy worship of nature and the tacit feeling for nature in the history of German forestry’, in M. Teich, et al. (eds), Nature and Society in the Historical Context, p. 230. 113 Anon, ‘The proposed regulations relating to smelting houses and charcoal burners’, pp. 103– 104. 114 In Perak the plantings were mainly timber woods, namely, cengal, merbau and mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla). In Selangor, there was some experimental planting of casuarina (Casuarina equisetifolia) and gelam for fuel. A 30 ha worked-out mining land in Circular Road, Kuala Lumpur, was planted with casuarinas, kapur, mahogany, tembusu (Fagraea spp.) and Para rubber. Memo, Acting Resident-General, ‘F.M.S. Forests’, Brief Notes and Queries for Mr. Hill … , 30 May 1900; Resident-General to High Commissioner, 12 March 1900; Memo, W.H. Treacher, Acting Resident-General, 30 May 1900, CO 273 263/40314; WyattSmith, Manual of Malayan Silvicultur, I, p. 1–2/8. Relics of this planting remain today. 115 Desmond, Kew, p. 301.Thiselton-Dyer had a distinguished career as Professor, successively, at the Agricultural College, Cirencester, the Royal College of Science, Dublin, and the Royal Horticultural Society, and served as Assistant to J.D. Hooker, prior to succeeding him. For a well-researched account of his pivotal role in promoting imperial botanical interests, see Drayton, Nature’s Government, pp. 238–267. 116 Joseph Hooker, for example, was alarmed by extinctions noted in St. Helena, while Thiselton-Dyer’s interest in tropical flora was similarly linked to the colonial economy. Their concerns were shared by Ridley who feared that as a result of the extensive conversion of forests to rubber – the cultivation of which he himself had promoted – a number of species had been ‘either rendered very rare or probably entirely exterminated’. Grove, Green Imperialism, p. 364; Desmond, Kew, pp. 251–252, 304; Ridley, The Flora of the Malay Peninsula, p. xiii. 117 Drayton, Nature’s Government, p. 237. 118 Sadka, The Protected Malay States, pp. 366–367. 119 Hill, Report, pp. 8–9. 120 A.O. Sullivan, Report of Reforestation,12 March 1895; Conservator of Forests to the Colonial Secretary, n.d.; G. Hall to Resident Councillor, 19 March 1895; Sullivan, Land Office, Penang, CO 273/204/12310. By 1885 the areas under reservation in the SS were: Penang 4,082 ha Province Wellesley 2,553 ha (in 1900) Melaka 19,838 ha Singapore 5,485 ha Governor, Singapore, to the Sec. of State, 14 June 1885, CO 273/204/12310; H.C. Hill, Report on the Present System of Forest Conservancy in the Straits Settlements with suggestions for future management, Singapore, 1900, p. 605. By 1935, the reserves created by Cantley in Singapore had been abolished and exploited for timber. Only the forest patches in Bukit Timah, Nee Soon, in the central catchment area and Labrador Park, constituting some 200 ha, were spared and placed under the Botanic Gardens. Sanson, Gardens and Parks of Singapore, pp. 51–122; I.H.Burkill, The Botanic Gardens and Conservation in Malaya, Singapore: Singapore Govt. Press, 1959, p. 293. 121 Governor, Singapore, to Marquis of Ripon, Colonial Office, 14 June 1895, CO 273/204/ 12310.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 82 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

82

122 This was one of several sub-species of cassava from Brazil introduced in 1886 by Cantley. Burkill, Economic Products, II, p. 1438; D.J.M. Tate, The Rubber Growers Association: A History of the Plantation Industry in the Malay Peninsula, Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1996, p. 145. The devastation of the Melaka landscape, ironically as a consequence of Cantley’s botanical venture, deeply concerned Dyer. Dyer to E. Fairfield, Colonial Office, 13 Oct. 1894, CO 273/ 200/17938. 123 H.N. Ridley, Annual Report on the Botanic Gardens and Forest Department, 1889, Singapore, 1890, p. 1; Rathborne, ‘Camping and Tramping’, p. 37. 124 C.B.H. Mitchell, Govt. House Singapore, to J. Chamberlain, Colonial Office, 28 Oct. 1895, ‘Singapore Botanic Gardens, 1874–1917’, RBGK. 125 C.W.S. Kynnersley, Resident Councillor, Melaka, 22 Feb. 1895, CO 273/204/12310. 126 A Eurasian Newspaper, the Straits Intelligence, was published during the brief period, 1883– 86. 127 Dyer to Fairfield, 13 Oct. 1894, CO 273/200/17938. 128 Kynnersley, 22 Feb. 1895, CO 273/204/12310. 129 Desmond, Kew, p. 300. 130 Colonial Office to the Director of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, 17 Dec. 1894, CO 273/ 200/20761. 131 Governor, Singapore, to Marquis of Ripon, Colonial Office, 14 June 1895, CO 273/204/ 12310. 132 Chai Hon-Chan, The Development of British Malaya, 1896–1909, Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1964, p. 66. 133 Mitchell to Chamberlain, 28 Oct. 1895, ‘Singapore Botanic Gardens, 1874–1917’, RBGK. 134 In 1872 Arthur B. Stephens began cassava planting in Province Wellesley and, following a venture into tobacco cultivation in Sumatra, became Indian Immigration Agent in the FMS. He was Deputy Superintendent of Government Plantations, Perak, in 1903, before his appointment as Deputy Conservator of Forests, Perak. Burn-Murdoch, ‘Forests of Malaya’, p. 330. 135 Governor, Singapore to the Marquis of Ripon, 14 June 1895, CO 273/204/12310; The Colonial Office to the Director of the Royal Gardens, Kew, 17 Dec. 1894, CO 273/200/20760; Watson, ‘Some materials for a forest history’, p. 64. 136 Desmond, Kew, p. 279. 137 Acting British Resident, Pahang, to Resident-General, 23 Nov. 1899, CO 273/263/40314. 138 Mitchell to Colonial Office, 27 Oct. 1899, ‘Malaya: Gutta-percha, 1876–1904’, Misc., RBGK. 139 J.A. Swettenham, Colonial Secretary, Singapore, to J. Chamberlain, 3 Feb. 1900, Confidential, CO 273/256, in ‘Singapore Botanic Gardens, Misc. 1874–1917’, RBGK. 140 In Selangor, for example, mature seed-bearing trees were rare. H. Conway Belfield, Annual Report, Selangor, 2 April 1901, Parliamentary Papers, LXVI (1902) p. 924. 141 CO 273/265/2634, Lucas, Colonial Office, 23 Jan. 1900. 142 Telegram, 24 March 1900, CO 273/256/8917. 143 Ibid. 144 Memo, Acting Resident-General, W.H. Treacher, n.d. for H.C. Hill, CO 273/263/40314. 145 This small coastal area, fully transferred by Perak to the Straits Settlements in 1886, was returned in 1935. See note 9 above. 146 Van Steenis-Kruseman, Flora Malesiana, I, pp. 231–33. Hill was accompanied on his tour by J. A. Swettenham, H.N. Ridley and W.L Carter, Collector of Land Revenue. 147 H.C. Hill, Report on the Present System of Forest Conservancy in the Straits Settlements with Suggestions for Future Management, Singapore, 1900; Report on the Present System of Forest Administration in the Federated Malay States with Suggestions for the Future Management of the Forests of those States, Kuala Lumpur: Selangor Govt. Printing Office, 1900. 148 Hill, Report…Federated Malay States, p. 1. 149 Ibid. 150 Hill, Report…Straits Settlements, pp. 1, 4. 151 Report on Perak by R.S.F. Walker, Acting British Resident, 15 April 1901, Parliamentary Papers, LXVI (1902) p. 891. 152 Hill, Report…Federated Malay States, pp. 6, 10.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 83 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Forests in the Pioneer Era, 1874– c.1900: Boon or Bane?

•

83

153 The other species included within the list of ‘reserved’ trees were cengal, damar laut merah (Shorea kunstleri), merbau (Intsia palembanica) and kulim (Scorodocarpus borneensis). Hill, Report…Straits Settlements, 1900, p. 5; Hill, Report…Federated Malay States, p.5. 154 At the turn of the century, the Perak mangroves were estimated to be yielding $280,000 worth of fuel, annually, and together with the mangroves in Singapore and the Dindings, supplied the railway and the shipping, tin-smelting and sugar industries. Taking account of the sharp increase in the demand and price of fuel, Hill recommended that exploitable mangroves be mapped and divided into felling areas, or coupes to be either sold or auctioned for harvesting. Hill, Report…Straits Settlements, pp. 7–8. Memo, W.H. Treacher, Acting Resident-General, 30 May 1900, CO 273/263/40314. 155 Hill, Report…Federated Malay States, p. 8. 156 Ibid., pp. 8–9. 157 Ibid., p. 10. 158 Memo, W.H. Treacher, Acting Resident-General, 30 May 1900, CO 273/263/40314. 159 Report on Forests, 22 Nov. 1900, CO 273/37986. 160 Treacher, 30 May 1900, CO 263/263/40314. 161 F. Swettenham, Acting High Commissioner, 1 July 1901, ‘Report on F.M.S. 1900’, Parliamentary Papers, LXVI (1902) p. 869. 162 Having completed his training at the Forest School at Cooper’s Hill, England, BurnMurdoch toured the forests of Germany and Switzerland before joining the Indian Forest Service in 1891. 163 Burn-Murdoch initially held the post of Chief Forest Officer, re-designated in 1904 as Conservator of Forests. 164 R.S.F. Walker, Acting British Resident, ‘Report on Perak’, 15 April 1901, Parliamentary Papers, LXVI (1902) p. 890. 165 Yeo Kim Wah, The Politics of Decentralization: Colonial Controversy in Malaya, 1920–1929, Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1982, p. 45. In 1911, the Resident-General was re-designated Chief Secretary. 166 W.H. Treacher, Acting Resident-General, 12 April 1901, CO 273/267/19365. 167 Lucas, Colonial Office, 10 Dec. 1900, CO 273/263/40314. 168 Purseglove, The Ridley Centenary, p. 7. 169 C.G.G.J. van Steenis (ed.), Flora Malesiana, Series I, vol. 6, Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoof, 1960–72, p. 9. 170 Charles Curtis, Superintendent of the Gardens and Forests in Penang, reported in 1887 that duplicates of 300 plants collected for the local herbarium had been sent to Kew. Out of the plants collected during the preceding 3 years, 4 new genera and 12 new species were recorded for Penang alone in Hooker’s Icones Plantarum. C. Curtis, SS Annual Report on the Forest Department, Penang 1887, Singapore: Govt. Printing Press, p. 5. 171 This was published in the Journal of the Bengal Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (1898– 1914). Van Steenis-Kruseman, Flora Malesiana, I, pp. 281–283; Van Steenis (ed.), Flora Malesiana, Ser.1, vol. 42. p. cxxxv; Ridley, Flora of the Malay Peninsula, p. xix. 172 Ridley contributed to successful rubber production in Malaya by devising a safe method of tapping, which entailed cutting incisions in the bark, in contrast to the destructive methods of slashing employed in South America and bole-felling among gutta-percha collectors in the Malay world. Desmond, Kew, p. 257.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 84 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

KWells_book_1.fm Page 85 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

PART II

Forestry and State Formation, 1901–41

KWells_book_1.fm Page 86 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

KWells_book_1.fm Page 87 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

CHAPTER THREE

Appropriating the Forest, 1901–41 I should say that the primary objective of the Forest Department and the one that overshadows all the rest is to protect the people and the country against their own improvidence. – G.E.S. Cubitt1

rofessional forestry extended control over the Peninsula’s resources more effectively and extensively than previously under Malay rule. It assisted, no less, the colonial strategy of promoting an ethnically segmented economy. Forest laws dismantled indigenous networks of trade in NTFP, a process assisted by a shift in the economic emphasis to timber and the industrial replacement of gutta-percha with rubber. As well as denying customary access to forests, colonial rule introduced extraction licences that disadvantaged the indigenes and favoured Chinese enterprise. The emergence of the Chinese as major stakeholders in the forest economy was, however, offset by recruitment of essential Malay participation in forest management. Pivotal to forest administration was the creation of a Malay vocational cadre that serviced the day-to-day administration of the District Office, headed by a British District Officer (DO). Employed from among the rural populace, the Malay subaltern service assisted in coordinating forest and land administration. Malay recruitment was particularly valuable for alleviating rural apprehension of forestry’s intrusive powers. At the same time, the executive powers of the Conservator, backed by Federal forest laws, undermined the Resident’s autonomy and his de facto control over land and the peasantry. These trends marked the embryonic beginnings of State–Federal conflicts over natural resource management, a central motif in post-colonial politics.

P

TO OLS OF APPROPR IATION

The administration of land and forest under independent departments was integral to the British aim of establishing a spatial separation between peasant agriculture and commercial forestry. The route to its realization was legislation that peremptorily set aside customary rights and privileges. In the FMS, laws drafted by the Conservator and approved by the Resident-General/Chief Secretary superseded existing State forest laws. Consolidated in 1907 within a

KWells_book_1.fm Page 88 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

88

common framework of principles, and nominally endorsed by the Ruler-inCouncil, these came into force within each State.2 At the same time, with due regard to the varying importance of the forest economy in the different States, Residents were allowed some flexibility in fixing royalties.3 Heavily reliant on revenues from jungle products, in 1908, Pahang imposed royalty on every item of economic value, including three varieties of attap, six varieties of dammar, five varieties of rubber and 17 varieties of bamboo.4 The rates payable were based on a significantly higher valuation of goods than in other States less dependent on revenues from NTFP. First-quality eaglewood was valued at $8 per kg in Pahang, compared to $1 in Negeri Sembilan and Perak. Similarly, first quality jernang (Daemonorops didymophylla), valuable for the production of ‘dragon’s blood’ from its fruit, was fixed at $2 in Pahang, compared with only 20 cents per kg in both Negeri Sembilan and Perak. 5 Apart from stipulating royalty rates, Residents also remained responsible for enacting additional laws to address problems specific to their own States. Thus, in 1903, to prevent the rampant collection of jungle produce by the large migrant population in Selangor, Resident H.C. Belfield prohibited the tapping of various species of rubber,6 dammar and wood-oil-yielding species, such as kumus (Shorea laevis) and cengal.7 The opportunity that Residents had for representing the interests of individual States was lost with the formation, in 1909, of the Federal Council for legislating common policies. Under this arrangement the States were obliged to follow policies tailored to Federal interests. Notably, Pahang shifted its focus from NTFP to timber, in the interests of serving the faster pace of development on the west coast. Federation and the inauguration of forest administration, which curbed the Resident’s previous independence, were a potential source of conflict between him and the Conservator. A 1902 ruling made consultation with the Conservator mandatory for forest alienations exceeding 400 ha. Contravening this, in 1906, the Perak Resident – generally partial to land development – leased 4,000 ha containing valuable taban in Ayer Kuning to W.W. Bailey. The matter, which came to the attention of Burn-Murdoch after the trees had been felled and tapped, contributed to a running animosity.8 Differences in attitude towards peasant affairs were a further source of friction between the Conservator and State authorities with their separate priorities. Federal forest management allowed less room than previously under the Resident for negotiating customary claims of access to the forest. Indeed, at the 1920 Empire Forestry Conference in London, Burn-Murdoch’s successor, G.E.S. Cubitt (1914–29), considered the strategy of conciliation urged by the Canadian delegation inappropriate for the Peninsula.9 In the Malay Peninsula the people are inarticulate: there is no question of co-operation with the people: the Government are responsible and solely responsible.10

KWells_book_1.fm Page 89 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Appropriating the Forest, 1901–41

•

89

By contrast, the Resident, who was responsible for the overall development of the State and was more closely associated with the general populace, placed greater emphasis on winning public cooperation. District Officers, in particular, believed that ‘the “rights” necessary to ordinary vocations and labours’ among the peasantry should be respected in the management of forests. 11 Residents soon found that a sympathetic evaluation of peasant claims meant challenging the Conservator’s executive authority and this proved not to be easy. A case in point was an early State law which allowed the unlicensed collection by the peasantry of ‘head-loads and kandar12 loads of firewood’ from dead or fallen trees.13 Interpreting the law liberally, the Resident permitted Malays to work the Parit Reserve, Lower Perak. The Conservator protested against the felling of merchantable hardwood from Forest Reserves, arguing that peasant needs could be met with wood from State Land. The matter was put to rest by the Legal Adviser’s endorsement of the Conservator’s mandate for managing Forest Reserves, giving commercial timber production priority over Malay privileges of access to forest produce.14 Although forestry managed all forested land, the allocation of State Land for the constitution of Reserves depended solely on the Resident’s influence in the State Council.15 It also remained effectively within the power of the Resident to revoke land already leased, granted or occupied, for inclusion within a Forest Reserve.16 In exercising this function it was the Resident who decided on the validity of land claims by individuals or communities before the creation of Forest Reserves.17 All this meant that forestry’s bid for reservation, in competition with the agricultural and mining sectors, rested irrevocably on the discretionary powers of the Resident. The division of reserves into ‘Protection Forest’ and ‘Production Forest’ was determined largely according to topography and floristic composition. Protection Forests were dedicated to the conservation of soil and retention of moisture on steep land. As these generally lay above the floristic zone rich in commercial tree species, they represented little revenue loss.18 Production Forests, in contrast, constituted selected areas of good timber in the lowlands, roughly below 300 m, and were set aside for planned production under silvicultural management. Given the rapid development in the timber-rich lowlands, reservation provided a means of holding stocks for the future. These reserves, as well as all other forests in unalienated land, classified as ‘State Land Forests’, were placed in the custody of the federally administered Forest Department, while rights over land and produce remained with the States. Contrary to Hill’s original proposal to limit reservation, both Burn-Murdoch and Cubitt pursued reservation as a means of pre-empting alienation to mining and plantations. They envisaged reserves, ideally, as land banks that would give forestry a lead role in planning land use. In 1906 the area of Reserved Forest was just 1,689 sq km out of 68,324 sq km constituting the FMS. 19 By 1916 it had increased to 4,749 sq km, or 6.9 per cent of the total land area. By 1918, the

KWells_book_1.fm Page 90 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

90

figure rose to 7,321 sq km, or 10 per cent, 20 with Pahang and Perak holding the smallest area of Reserved Forest relative to their total size. Reserves were designed to incorporate protective forests on watersheds and other environmentally sensitive landscapes as well as prime areas of timber, gutta-percha and camphor, the last incorporated into the Rompin Reserve (1910) and the Gunung Lesung Reserve in south Pahang (1912). Unable to regulate the activities particularly of the plantation enterprise, to which the government was generally partial, Cubitt took advantage of the reduced pressure for land alienation during spells of economic stagnation to step up reservation. The slowed pace of plantation development during World War I (1914–18), the subsequent slump in the price of rubber and the Stevenson Rubber Restriction Scheme (1922–28) helped the Forest Department to increase reservation. As seen below (Table 1), reservation almost doubled between 1913 and 1919 and, again, between 1919 and 1923, constituting 19.6 per cent of the land area by 1927.21 By 1932 the target of 25 per cent of Reserved Forests was achieved,22 after which reservation in the FMS slowed down and efforts were directed to the UFMS (See Chapter 4). Table 1: Reserved Forest relative to State and Alienated Land, FMS 1913–38 Year

Percentage Reserved Forest

Percentage State Land

Percentage Alienated Land

1909

3.0

–

–

1913

5.0

82.9

11.9

1916

6.9

81.2

–

1919

10.3

76.4

13.3

1922

13.1

73.2

13.7

1927

19.8

65.6

14.8

1932

25.6

58.6

15.7

1938

27.6

–

–

Source: Annual Reports 1910,1913, 1923, 1932, and 1938.

Conservancy was interpreted also in terms of preventing wastage. The licensing of timber felling on land alienated for agricultural was adopted, as originally proposed by Hill, but was overtaken by the rapid pace of rubber planting. During the first two decades of the century, a staggering 70.5 million cu m of wood were indiscriminately burned in the course of clearance for rubber planting.23 The wastage starkly contrasted with the demand for wood. In 1904, some 1 million cu m of wood were harvested from Reserved Forests, out of which 93,750 cu m were taken free by the mines in lieu of one-third of

KWells_book_1.fm Page 91 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Appropriating the Forest, 1901–41

•

91

the opium revenues credited until 1909 to the Forest Department. 24 Only in 1925 was the privilege of free wood for mines finally phased out. 25 World War I brought a temporary deceleration in the demand for industrial wood but, by 1919, there was rapid recovery, with the need for timber principally for railway sleepers.26 The bulk of the good timber for sleepers was extracted from State Land, based on the Forest Department’s deliberate policy of utilizing timber on alienable land. In 1904, State Land Forests supplied 96,000 sleepers, mainly of heavy-hardwood, cengal and resak (Vatica and Cotylelobium spp.).27 With the extension of railways the number of sleepers supplied rose sharply from 145,100 in 1908 to 251,990 within the space of a year. 28 By 1919, the total wood consumption was estimated at 3 million cu m, out of which the mines used 1.1 million cu m, compared to 1.8 million cu m for domestic consumption.29 Unlike railway sleepers, fuel wood was extracted largely from silvicultural operations in the Reserved Forests. Primarily, forestry’s silvicultural operations were based on weeding out unwanted species in favour of commercial species under Regeneration Improvement Felling (RIF), a system introduced by Hummel30 and developed by Sanger-Davies.31 This made a virtue of necessity by integrating routine silvicultural operations with licensed thinning under selective commercial felling or ‘Commercial Regeneration Felling’. It represented a practical and economic response to integrating demands for poles, firewood and charcoal with silvicultural prescriptions. 32 In Selangor, it involved pole and firewood cutting by the Malay and mining populace, contributing to excellent regeneration in Reserves.33 Besides preventing wastage, the system is attested to have reduced the cost of silvicultural operations and assisted natural regeneration by opening up the canopy and accelerating the growth of Class I trees.34 Complementing timber and fuel output from dryland forest, the mangroves supplied the charcoal industry. Following Hill’s advice, the mangrove forests were, in fact, the first to be systematically managed to service the tin industry. The programme included regeneration in the Dindings, a major source of fuel for the Colony and the FMS.35 The term ‘mangrove’ applied generally to a variety of trees found growing on tidal mud flats. In 1925 mangrove forests occupied some 64,777 ha in the FMS, with the two largest areas in Selangor and Perak.36 Prone to few diseases, rapidly regenerating and relatively easy to fell and transport, the trees were an indispensable fuel source.37 In the FMS the harvesting of mangrove wood was licensed largely to Chinese on a rotation basis, allowing for regeneration.38 The introduction of controlled harvesting to regulate exploitation guaranteed protection for the mangroves, which harboured rich aquatic life, important in local diets. Malay reaction to reservation and the harsh restrictions on NTFP, tantamount to exclusion from the forest economy, was expressed in the widespread evasion of forest laws. Produce was smuggled over FMS borders into the still independent Malay States, particularly Johor. The official trade in NTFP, except

KWells_book_1.fm Page 92 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

92

for bamboo, was seriously jeopardized and prices slumped. The value of firstquality eaglewood, rated in 1907 at $ 8.20 per kg, dropped to $1.30 by 1925 and that of dammar shrank by one third, due to competition from the Netherlands Indies.39 Pahang was hardest hit and was unable to arrest the general downturn in revenues accrued from the trade in NTFP.40 Neither was it able to anticipate depletion of bamboo stocks by a proposed 25 per cent increase on export duty. The move was overruled by the Conservator, anxious to guarantee supplies to the west coast mining industry.41 Overall, forest laws, the cost of extraction licences, curbs on shifting cultivation and the Malay Reservation policy hampered the fluidity of movement and access to forest produce that had underpinned traditional trade networks. As the timber industry gained ascendance over NTFP, laws relating to log extraction were tightened. Based on existing rules, the 1909 Forest Rules, 42 brought into force meticulous rules for harvesting timber of selected species and size, determined according to minimum girth at a prescribed height (dbh). A uniform system of royalty on timber and NTFP was enforced, with rates fixed according to the market value of individual species. All extraction, except by mining and kampung communities, was subject to the purchase of monthly licences, the price of which varied according to the number of coolies employed. Each workman was required to carry a sub-licence and was subjected to a complicated system of checks to ensure compliance with rules. The movement of timber was limited to the hours between 6am to 6pm and was confined to prescribed routes, serviced by checking stations at strategic locations. 43 With the creation of the Forest Department, tax collection and enforcement of forest laws passed from the Collector-of-Revenue in the District Office to Forest Officers. They liased with the penghulu, who played an indispensable role in facilitating forest management at village level. As R.S.F. Walker, the Acting Resident in Perak, noted in 1901, ‘By no class of officer is the government better served than by the Penghulu’.44 Because of the penghulu’s influential position and familiarity with land and forest affairs, winning his cooperation was essential to the introduction of forest rules, often at variance with the ageold privileges and rights of residents within the mukim (district). In the course of administering his mukim, the penghulu was expected to explain the forest and timber rules to kampung residents. Complementing the penghulu as mediator at the crucial interface between the forest service and the rural community was a new breed of indigenous staff, namely, the Forest Rangers and Forest Guards. In the early years of recruitment, personal influence and status within the community were virtually the only criteria for appointing Forest Rangers, frequently selected from among the aristocracy. This new class of Malay government servant collected revenues, enforced forest rules and performed police functions, apprehending lawbreakers.45 Fines for non-compliance were compounded by the Deputy Forest Conservator in each State and cases of unsettled payment taken to court.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 93 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Appropriating the Forest, 1901–41

•

93

Among the Forest Guards were some skilled and influential members of Orang Asli communities.46 Nevertheless, the small size of the forest establishment relative to the extent and difficulty of terrain, as well as ties of communal loyalties, made for leniency and a large margin of unrecorded ‘crime’. The erosion of Malay vested interest in forests resources and the lack of professional training for subordinate staff undermined the desired integration of social influence with service integrity as a hallmark of colonial rule. THE MALAYAN FORESTER

Training for Empire forestry was slow to develop because of the lack of an early model of professional forestry in Britain. The abundance of coal and wood imports and private ownership of woodlands in Britain were hardly conducive to the development of forest science, for which Germany and France set the lead.47 Under these circumstances, the Indian government, as indeed the Dutch administration in Java, turned to German expertise.48 Foundations for the Indian forest service were laid by the German forester, Dietrich Brandis, first Superintendent of Forests in Pegu and, later, InspectorGeneral of the Indian Forest Department, founded in 1864.49 Due to the lack of interest at home in establishing forestry as an autonomous discipline, Brandis inaugurated a training programme for British recruits in France and Germany.50 Training was transferred in 1885 to the Royal Technical Engineering College at Cooper’s Hill,51 with William Schlich as Professor.52 In 1905, links with engineering were sundered and a fully professional forestry school for probationers for the colonies came into existence at St John’s College, Oxford. It trained nearly 90 per cent of those accepted by the Indian Forest Service but failed to meet anything like the numbers required in the Empire. 53 To widen the spectrum of selection for boosting recruitment, as of 1910 competition for the Colonial Forest Service was opened also to graduates of the Forestry Schools at Edinburgh and Cambridge, established in 1887 and 1907 respectively, 54 and the Imperial Forest Institute at Dehra Dun, India, for junior staff training. The difficulty faced by the FMS in recruiting trained foresters was not helped by the greater attraction of eligible candidates to higher salaries and lower living costs in India. To alleviate the shortage, in 1906 the Governor and High Commissioner, John Anderson, set up a scheme for ‘Technically Trained Staff ’ for the Malay Peninsula under the supervision of Professor Schlich at Cooper’s Hill. Training was premised on Schlich’s conviction that a forester was a scientific and technical expert, as distinct from a woodsman whose job it was to cut and prune.55 In appreciation of the importance of forest botany, the scheme provided a three-month course in systematic botany at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, followed by six months in Germany. B.H.F. Barnard, with his practical experience as a forester, took advantage of this short course in 1907, while A. Sanger-Davies and J. P. Mead, who started in Cooper’s Hill, graduated at the Oxford School of Forestry.56 In addition to their professional training,

KWells_book_1.fm Page 94 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

94

forest officers were required, like all civil servants, to pass a Malay language examination.57 To overcome staff shortage, in addition to the few Dehra Dun-trained foresters recruited from Burma, Governor Anderson sought Schlich’s help to engage the services of German foresters. Heer Th. Christ of the Bavarian Government Forest Service was appointed Deputy Conservator of Forests, Pahang. 58 The new recruit, with no experience of the tropics apart from two weeks spent in the Calcutta Botanic Gardens, failed the test of endurance in the wilds of Pahang and resigned having hardly made a start. Hummel, who replaced him in 1914, was also recruited from the Bavarian forest service.59 The policy of employing German foresters was not without its critics. The eminent Indian forester, E.P Stebbing, questioned ‘whether the attempt to strictly apply Germany’s rather hard-and-fast methods based on axiomatic dicta and calculations had not its drawbacks in the case of the Indian forests … .’ 60 All the same, German technical expertise had its merits, as demonstrated by the sound silvicultural practices introduced in the Peninsula by Hummel. 61 During the early phase of its development, Malayan forestry continued under the patronage of the Burmese service. This meant that when BurnMurdoch retired in 1914, both Hummel and Barnard, despite their local experience, were passed over in favour of Cubitt, Inspector of Forests in Burma. 62 In weighing up the merits of his own case against a candidate from the Indian service, Barnard argued for experience and knowledge of the Malayan forest, so different in character and composition from the deciduous forest of mainland Southeast Asia. He stressed that no ready-made system of management from elsewhere could be adopted and only by the systematic collection of data, observation and experiment could a programme, adapted to local conditions, be evolved. Barnard’s vested interests aside, his argument resonated with BurnMurdoch’s own views.63 In the event, Cubitt’s selection was vindicated by the reputation he subsequently earned as ‘a first-class organizer of rare vision’. 64 In fact, it was Cubitt, the external recruit who recognizing the merits of practical training and experience initiated a local training scheme for junior staff. In the appointment of Extra Assistant Conservators he envisaged supplementing recruitment from Britain, Dehra Dun and Burma with locally trained probationers, selected from among Malay Forest Rangers. With the objective, evidently, of making room for English-educated Malays and Eurasians, he excluded Indians.65 Employment of Malays acquainted with the forest and the rural environment worked in parallel with the government’s drive for Malay recruitment in the civil and technical services.66 Cubitt’s plan for improving efficiency by staff training and higher recruitment was boosted by the setting up of the Imperial Forestry Institute at Oxford 67 and the Inter-Departmental Committee for Forestry Education, as part of the Colonial Office’s efforts to address Britain’s wood crisis (see below). 68 Thus, Cubitt successfully fended off the 1922 retrenchment proposals during the

KWells_book_1.fm Page 95 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Appropriating the Forest, 1901–41

•

95

economic slump and staff numbers continued to grow.69 Cubitt, accused of ‘intransigence’ by the Retrenchment Commission of 1932, succeeded in saving the posts of professional European staff, countering a proposal for replacing them with lower-salaried Malay recruits. The Conservator’s candid comment that improved educational standards must precede higher Malay recruitment met the official response that standards must, if necessary, be lowered. It should be recognized … that the necessity of employing Malays in the public service is sufficiently urgent to warrant, if need be, the toleration of a lower degree of efficiency than might otherwise be attainable.70

Malays generally received no more than a simple vernacular education in village schools and, hampered by their lack of proficiency in English, few gained entry to the Imperial Forest College at Dehra Dun.71 Set on making amends rather than lower professional standards, in 1923 Cubitt introduced a vernacular training programme for Malay probationers. This became the basis for the forestry school founded in 1927, at a 330 ha-site at Kepong, situated 14 km from Kuala Lumpur. It was integrated into the Forest Research Institute (FRI), inaugurated in 1926 and fully established three years later. The introduction of textbooks in the Malay language on forest surveying and tree and timber identification improved the training opportunities for a large number of Malay recruits.72 Efforts were made at the same time to enhance arboreal knowledge in rural areas. In 1932, G. Wilkinson, Acting Conservator of Forests in Kedah, announced the introduction of a pamphlet on the rudiments of forestry in Jawi, in the old peasant heartland of Kedah. He believed that such information would benefit younger Malays, particularly the ruling classes who commanded a wide influence in rural circles.73 Recognition of tree cultivation and conservation as integral to rural life was evident in the 1939 publication by A. Keir of a primer on Malayan forests as part of an agricultural manual.74 Closely associated with staff training was Cubitt’s vision for expanding research. The FRI soon gained distinction as the foremost in the Empire for the study of tropical evergreen rain forest. Envisaged as a centralized organization for serving the interests of the Peninsula, its expenses were shared by the component States of the British administration.75 Research was placed under the direction of F.W. Foxworthy, a gifted botanist and wood technologist who had headed the research branch of the Philippines Bureau of Forestry before joining the FMS in 1918 as Research Officer.76 Additional recruits serviced various branches of specialization, including botany, wood anatomy, entomology, chemistry, forest economy and silviculture.77 In conjunction with research initiatives for timber grading to improve marketability, a Timber Testing Laboratory was established in Sentul, Kuala Lumpur. 78 Although in 1928 silviculture in the Peninsula was deemed very much in its infancy, Peninsular initiatives won the accolade of H.R. Branford, Conservator in Burma, at a conference on tropical evergreen rain forests held in Dehra Dun. Referring

KWells_book_1.fm Page 96 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

96

particularly to the great strides made in forest regeneration in the Peninsula, he suggested that Madras foresters might well benefit from Malayan expertise. 79 CONT ROL OVER ECO NO MIC SP EC IES

The creation of the research branch was integral to Cubitt’s scheme for boosting the trade in NTFP as a means of supplementing the fall in timber revenues following the 1921/22 economic downturn. Compared with the high contribution of tin and rubber export earnings, the value of jungle produce during the early decades of the century was fractional, constituting less than half a per cent. But, even though ‘minor’ forest products such as gum and gutta-percha were substances of low unit value, they constituted essential ingredients for industry and their aggregate value was deemed to have exceeded that of timber. 80 In seeking justification for direct government participation in the collection, processing and marketing of the more important NTFP, Cubitt argued that, ‘If the merchant is apathetic, or trades badly, or refuses to trade at all, government has no option but to step in.’ Government intervention was aimed at increasing output and raising the quality of exports by guaranteeing fairer returns to producers through eliminating middlemen. 81

Dammar The resin damar, derived largely from the family Dipterocarpaceae, was traditionally used for torches and caulking boats. What became known as dammar in the European vocabulary was derived principally from damar mata kucing (Hopea spp.) and damar penak /cengal (Neobalanocarpus heimii), and was used largely in the manufacture of varnish and paper size. 82 The trade was primarily in the hands of Chinese, who employed indigenous collectors to supply Singapore’s international trade in NTFP. In the Peninsula, dammar collection operated on casual lines, licensed by the Forest Department for foraging over fairly wide areas. Like the Johor ruler and Malay entrepreneurs earlier involved in the gutta-percha trade, licensed Chinese middlemen employed Malay and aboriginal collectors. Trees were widely damaged and many died through frequent and intensive basal tapping. The dammar was delivered for as little as $1 per pikul (about 1.6 cents per kg), generally to local shopkeepers for credit and necessities advanced.83 Singapore dealers, who worked through a wide network of middlemen, often mixed better grade Malayan dammar with inferior varieties from other sources in the Archipelago.84 During the World War I price slump, private interest in dammar trade declined, but foresters remained aware of its potential in the British and American markets, particularly as accessible supplies from Borneo began to dwindle. 85 Apart from a single European investor at Kuala Pilah, Negeri Sembilan, during the early part of the century, the enterprise was exclusively in the hands of Chinese licensees who employed Malay and Orang Asli collectors. 86 In 1922,

KWells_book_1.fm Page 97 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Appropriating the Forest, 1901–41

•

97

keen on expanding the trade, the State government took over the industry. Cancelling existing licences to the Chinese, it contracted with the local agricultural populace, placing each tapper in charge of 30 trees. To discourage adulteration and to upgrade extraction methods, the Forest Department offered a competitive rate of 20 cents per kg for lumps and one-third the rate for dust. Forest Guards received the dammar at fixed locations, after which it was sorted and graded at a central clearing station opened at Kuala Pilah. 87 The entirely female work force, down to the age of 5 years, was predominantly Chinese. 88 To promote the marketing of a standardized Malayan product, the Forest Department contracted with Stephen, Paul & Co. in Singapore for final sorting and grading.89 The Malaya-Borneo Exhibition staged in 1921 in Singapore and the British Empire Exhibition in 1923 at Wembley90 provided the Forest Department a welcome opportunity for promoting the NTFP trade and gaining knowledge of markets.91 In 1926, J.G. Watson was appointed Forest Economist92 and Philip Phillips, who had a acquired a wide knowledge of gum and resin collection in Pahang and Negeri Sembilan, was given a roving commission to upgrade the trade in minor forest produce.93 Apart from the profit motive, government participation in the dammar industry was viewed as a means of protecting cengal from damage through poor tapping methods. To save the tree from destruction through continuous tapping at the base, branch tapping was introduced but was unpopular because of the climbing involved. In the long term, collections fell short of the needs of the Europe and America markets. The scattered and remote location of trees made tapping difficult and the industry was crippled by labour shortage, particularly following the recovery of the rubber industry. Malays in Perak and Selangor, in particular, were reported to be uninterested in participating as they were ‘too well off ’. In 1923, there were an estimated 13,000 untapped trees in Perak and more than 17,000 in Pahang. In Negeri Sembilan and Perak, government enterprise ground to a halt.94 In Selangor, where cengal were fewer and not easily accessible, tapping was restricted largely to stands in Hulu Kali, by Orang Asli.95 In an attempt to solve labour shortage, the government settled 50 Mendailing families with traditional tapping skills at Langkap, Negeri Sembilan. To secure their permanence, they were placed under their own chiefs and supplied with rice. The settlement expanded and extraction increased, but the reluctance of the Mendailing to adopt branch tapping resulted in the heavy loss of trees. 96 Output, too, remained small in international terms. In 1927, compared to the 125,511 kg exported from the FMS, sales from the Netherlands Indies to the USA alone totalled 4.9 million kg.97 By 1929, the Malayan dammar industry was driven out of the market by higher-grade exports from Batavia to Europe and the USA and the availability of fast-drying synthetic substitutes that varnish makers preferred.98 By 1930, a cut in the government’s purchase price

KWells_book_1.fm Page 98 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

98

reduced the tappers’ monthly income to $10–$12, compared with an average $40 earned in 1925, damaging the industry’s viability.99

Gutta-percha Gutta-percha was the other item that drew official attention. As the taban tree takes some 25–50 years to come into production, with a lower yield than Para rubber, it held little attraction for the European investor. Following the nineteenth-century damage to taban stands,100 the trade picked up again by 1917. The Peninsula supplemented British imports from Borneo, while the Netherlands Indies remained in control of about five-sixths of the world market.101 With renewed interest in NFTP, J.A. Barrett spent almost a year researching gutta-percha production. Following Hill’s earlier recommendation, all taban stands were placed under reservation and a more economical tapping method was introduced involving leaf extraction through pruning at 3–4 year intervals.102 As with dammar production, the introduction of sustainable methods of extraction failed because of a decline in price from $12.50 per kg in 1919 to a mere 95 cents in 1929.103 Moreover, once the submarine cables were laid, the durability of the gutta-percha insulation reduced demand to the requirements only of maintenance. The subsequent introduction of the radiotelegraph, supplanting reliance on cable communication, further depressed prospects and the trade reverted to small entrepreneurs.104 Once at the heart of the region’s forest economy, gutta-percha succumbed to technical progress and the capitalist forces that shaped the Para rubber industry.

Jelutong The milky, latex-like substance produced by Dyera cosulata and used by the indigenous people as a substitute for bungs, found a small but important place in modern industry. It was used in the manufacture of chewing gum in the USA, for waterproofing fabrics, and for mixing with gutta-percha for electrical insulation. As early as 1910, the British Malaysian Manufacturing Company Limited of London gained a 10-year monopoly for tapping jelutong. In the interests of species protection, extraction was restricted to trees of a stipulated age, following fixed procedures. A large enough work force was also required to guarantee unhurried and systematic tapping. To upgrade the quality of exports, collaborative experiments on improving coagulation were conducted with chemists in the Agriculture Department.105 The Forest Department’s interest in participating directly in the jelutong industry was spurred by declining exports during the 1920s from the Netherlands Indies, the world’s leading supplier, stemming from widespread tree damage through careless tapping. In taking over the industry, the Forest Department was committed to improving methods of tapping and refining. 106 Collection was licensed to a number of entrepreneurs, large and small,107 and the supplies sent initially to a Singapore agent, H. Gild, who later set up a refinery in Jerantut, Pahang. In 1923, the factory turned out 120, 800 kg108 and produc-

KWells_book_1.fm Page 99 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Appropriating the Forest, 1901–41

•

99

7. Tapping Dyera costulata (jelutong) (T.C. Whitmore)

tion in the FMS rose to 356,178 kg and 559,364 kg during the next two years. The bulk of the output was from Pahang, with collection in the north and west managed by a Chinese. In the east the operation was largely in the hands of a European entrepreneur who owned a processing factory in Kuantan, employing Malay and Orang Asli collectors.109 Between 1927 and 1928 the annual jelutong output doubled.110 In 1929, a total of 1.4 million kg was produced, but the industry suffered even more seriously than other NTFP from tapping costs.111 For, unlike taban, which generally grew in stands, the distribution of jelutong was limited to about one tree per 1.6 ha.112 Efforts by District Forest Officers (DFOs) to provide supervision proved impractical as licensed areas stretched over hundreds of hectares in remote locations, accessible only by river or jungle paths.113 These negative factors, combined with insufficient knowledge about how to structure tapping regimes to optimize production, complicated the task of catering for an unstable market. The industry remained viable only within traditional networks

KWells_book_1.fm Page 100 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

100

8. Rattan drying (T.C. Whitmore)

of collecting and marketing, exposed to the risk of opportunistic extraction. By the 1930s, despite an appreciable decline in export earnings, jelutong was still the main source of revenue from NTFP. However, tapping-related disease that resulted in the loss of seed-bearing trees, as with cengal, put a greater value on their timbers, to the detriment of the NTFP industry.

Rattan and Prospects for NTFP Bamboo and rattan offered more stable regimes of extraction than the slowgrowing gum, latex and resin producing trees. Though by the 1920s, planks fast replaced bamboo and rattan in Malay domestic architecture, a lucrative export market emerged for rattan. Venturing into the industry, in 1925 the Forest Department engaged Malays and Orang Asli to deliver supplies for cleaning and grading at Bukit Betung, Kuala Lipis. The difficulty here was penetrating the supply network monopolized by Singapore wholesalers working on a low capital outlay and employing an experienced and skilled Chinese labour force for processing.114 As the Conservator soon realized, ‘The rattan business is an intricate one and difficult to learn.’115 The depletion of stocks by the Great Flood of 1926 drew the line under plans for a large-scale industry. Subsequently, prospects for government investment were limited to a small and specialized market for polo sticks and ‘Melaka cane’, made from carefully selected rattan with a creamy mottled appearance.116 Within the limited revenue-earning capacity of NTFP, the rattan trade stood second in importance to jelutong117 and held greater prospects of sustainability.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 101 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Appropriating the Forest, 1901–41

•

101

In 1925, the Peninsula’s share of NTFP exports from Singapore was estimated at 5 per cent, excluding produce smuggled out, especially from the Endau region of south Pahang.118 This represented a 4 per cent increase since government intervention for promoting NTFP production. But, as seen below (Table 2), revenue earnings from individual items of of NTFP were subject to sharp fluctuations, with an overall decline between 1929 and 1932. Even the availability of surplus labour during the Great Depression failed to bolster trade because of an overall drop in international demand.119 Table 2: Revenues ($) from forest produce, the Malay States, 1911,* 1927, 1929 and 1932 Kind of produce

1911

1927

1929

1932

Timber, poles, fuel

16,270

1,443,453

1,528,679

533,622

Bamboo

84,560

6,211

7,958

3,063

–

26,875

29,330

18,634

20,880

69,700

11,135

7, 954

119,512

21,402

1,221

7,704

–

15,684

82,488

40,734

69,332

4,311

2,792

1,539

39,931,123

1,893

1,548

210

Wood oil

–

711

516

1,523

Miscellaneous

–

12,523

2,925

8,395

Rattan Dammar (all types) Gutta-percha Jelutong Nipa Para rubber

*Figures for 1911 are for exports from the FMS only. Source: Annual Reports, 1911, 1927, 1929 and 1932.

The Forest Department’s experiment proved that production of NTFP could not be organized as a state-controlled, capital-intensive modern industry. The wide dispersal of economic species and their small, sporadic yields precluded regulated and intensified extraction. The official prejudice, that ‘it is hardly to be expected that the Malay will do anything regularly’120 was born of failure to appreciate the ecological realities of the rain forest. The small and unpredictable returns from extraction, and price fluctuations on the world market, favoured a mixed economy in which forest produce supplemented the traditional subsistence economy of the indigenous Malays and Orang Asli. Traditionally, both had adopted flexible regimes of extraction, attuned to market conditions. Skilled in the extraction of exudates in the wild, many now took to smallholder rubber cultivation or cash earnings from casual tapping. These processes were accelerated by reduced access to forest produce and new opportunities for rubber cultivation as road and railway networks expanded.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 102 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

102

On the whole, only the Chinese successfully coped with fluctuations in production and demand. Capitalizing on clan and ethnic linkages, Chinese middlemen, shopkeepers and exporters supported the NTFP trade, often in combination with a range of other activities, and based on small capital and shrewd market strategies. In Singapore, a number of European dealers participated in the export trade but it was the Chinese who dominated the wholesale business, using their own skilled labour force for the complicated process of sorting and grading. The numerous storehouses owned by Messrs Low Ah Jit, where stocks could be held until prices were favourable, put them in the lead.121 This, as well as the demand for improved grades in the European and North American markets, guaranteed the skilled Chinese processing business a secure place in Singapore, where in 1934, for example, dammar imported at an average $85 per 1,000 kg, was exported at $161. 122 Government intervention did little to alter the structure of the NTFP industry, which continued to be non-intensive. In 1939, Pahang was still the Peninsula’s main source of jungle produce and yielded revenues slightly in excess of $100,000. With the exception of jelutong, the NTFP trade had diminished dramatically. 123 The Forest Department withdrew participation from a trade that did not lend itself to modernization. All the same, it considered its role in research and experimentation vital for assisting the small entrepreneur and protecting economically valuable species.124 The latter objective was better achieved in the long term with reference to timber than the NTFP enterprise. TOWARDS SUSTAINABILIT Y

In the face of the 1921–22 rubber slump, improvement of the NTFP trade had formed part of the economic strategy outlined by the new High Commissioner, Sir Laurence Guillemard (1919–27). In an address to the Federal Council he drew attention to the multiple value of forests. Tin is a wasting asset: The Forests properly managed, are an asset of continually increasing value, and the Government attaches the greatest importance to their maintenance not only as a source of revenue but on account of the many other benefits which accrue from the possession of them [my italics].125

Guillemard’s speech, the first official statement of conservation ethic, was the direct outcome of Cubitt’s astute move to stir the home government in the direction of a major shift in policy. Post-war efforts under Lloyd George’s reconstruction programme to address Britain’s wood crisis had given forestry a fillip. In 1919, the British Forestry Commission was formed, chaired by the Scottish landlord and lead advocate of reforestation, Lord Lovat. Under the impetus of these developments, which finally drew attention to professional forestry, the Empire Forestry Association and the Empire Forestry Conference were set up largely through Canadian initiative.126 Seizing the opportunity of the first conference, held in July 1920 in London, Cubitt proposed the formal

KWells_book_1.fm Page 103 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Appropriating the Forest, 1901–41

•

103

enunciation of a forest policy in every part of the Empire. In the particular case of the FMS, he considered that such a policy would strengthen forestry’s position against the misgivings of the general public and civil servants who had no clear understanding of its role. What Cubitt envisaged was essentially the enforcement of a rationalized land use policy to arrest the indiscriminate alienation of forest land. He pointed out that the dependence of mines on wood, for example, was overlooked in the alienation of adjacent forest areas for rubber plantations.127 In economic terms, the deceleration of forest clearance for rubber and a slackening in the logging industry during the depression reduced depletion of forest stocks. But Guillemard urged frugality in the use of wood and fuel, in anticipation of economic recovery. Interpreted within the framework of his proposed decentralization policy, the wise use of existing forest stocks and their improved and sustained yield implied closer supervision and more efficient management by individual States. In short, each State was envisaged as custodian of its forests. The government desires not only that the whole country, but that each State and District in the country, should as far as possible, be permanently self-supporting in respect of timber and other forest produce … It is the duty of Land Officers to cooperate with officers of the Forest Department in … explaining to the people the need for the preservation of forests and remembering that the development of the forest resources may take a number of years, that the local demands on the forests are continually increasing, and that we must often be content ‘to leave it to our successors to reap where we are sowing’. 128

The new policy came as a welcome relief to the Forest Department. Alarmed by the rate of wood consumption in the FMS, it was anxious to dispel the widely held myth of tropical abundance. As Foxworthy stated plainly: In this as in other tropical countries, people often make very confident statements as to the extent and yield of the forests, and, occasionally, the claim is made that our forests are inexhaustible. Statements of this kind are not only foolish but dangerous, because they are likely to lead to prodigious waste. It cannot be truly said that any forest, in the tropics or elsewhere, is inexhaustible, and belief in the inexhaustibility of the forest, and the wanton waste, which seems to be the result of such a belief, have caused the denudation of large areas in all parts of the world, followed by timber famine, loss of soil, and lessened productivity of the land.129

By 1919 the total annual wood consumption in the FMS was estimated at 4.2 million cu m, including 3.9 million cu m of fuelwood.130 Valued at $25 million, it amounted to more than 2.8 cu m per capita, the highest in the world outside the USA.131 An additional 2.1 million cu m of wood was consumed in the Straits Settlements, drawn partly from Rompin, Pahang, but mainly from the Unfederated Malay States/UFMS (see pp. 139–143), as well as Sumatra. With a

KWells_book_1.fm Page 104 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

104

further 1.4 million cu m estimated to have been utilized in the UFMS, Foxworthy calculated that some 7.7 million cu m of wood were consumed annually in the Peninsula. By 1939, this figure was estimated to have risen to 8 million cu m, comparable to the amount harvested in 1970 (see Appendix 2).132 Thus, within less than half a century of British intervention, foresters spoke of an impending shortage of accessible sources of wood. The yield from 3.5 million ha of Production Forest in the FMS was considered barely sufficient to satisfy demand and a ‘wood famine’ was reported in the more densely populated areas around Kuala Lumpur and in Kinta, Perak.133 There was little prospect of continued reliance on supplementary mangrove wood. A 1926 aerial survey revealed stock loss in Selangor and Perak through coastal attrition, aggravated by indiscriminate cutting of wood for fishingstakes by local communities.134 It was feared that even with the relatively untouched resources of the UFMS, wood sufficiency, with a surplus for export, would be hard to realize. Without careful forest management, a wood crisis was predicted in the Peninsula by c. 2030.135 Related to the problem of wood shortage were technological constraints and the high cost of labour. The extent to which labour was built into the equation of timber availability is made clear in the Conservator’s 1925 Annual Report, which referred to ‘something approaching a timber famine’ in the FMS, due largely to the recovery of the rubber industry, offering easier and more lucrative employment.136 Consistent with the policy of prudence in forest utilization, priority was given to harvesting State Land Forests earmarked for alienation. Gradually, as these were logged over, dependence on Forest Reserves increased, with the most accessible areas opened up first.137 A shrewd administrator, Cubitt realized that the only way reservation could go forward was by guaranteeing access to competing sectors, especially the paddy cultivating peasantry. The avowed policy that ‘ordinarily the claims of forestry must give way to the claims of permanent cultivation of cereals’ was seen as justifying reservation through sustained exploration and mapping. Forests have to be reserved on a large scale as rapidly as possible, and are of necessity explored only to such an extent as will suffice to determine their value as forests. It is therefore inevitable that within their boundaries there should be included many pieces of land which can with greater advantage to the public be put to other than sylvicultural uses.138

With the notable exception of forests covering water catchments essential for protecting the plains below, Cubitt declared that any ‘real demand for agricultural land, which can only be supplied from Reserved Forests, should ordinarily be met without hesitation’. At the same time, to ensure that such concessions did not threaten the integrity of the forests, he stipulated a number of basic safeguards. Favoured was the conversion of a few large blocks for permanent cultivation by the peasantry, with restricted access to allocated areas of adjoining forest to serve everyday needs.139

KWells_book_1.fm Page 105 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Appropriating the Forest, 1901–41

•

105

Forest mapping, a prerequisite for reservation, was effectively an exercise in territorialization. An initial map, published in 1920, was revised in 1922 by a team of forest officers, assisted by two rubber planters out of work during the depression.140 Against criticism that reservation had gone too far, Cubitt argued that ‘forestry is not an exact science’ and that management for production, especially in the tropics, was made complex by the long cycles of growth and decline. Reserves were meant to serve immediate and future domestic needs, allowing a margin for export. Such reserves, Cubitt pointed out, though apparently extensive, included a large proportion of Protection Forest of little direct economic value but essential for preventing erosion and silting. 141 CO-OPTING THE CHINESE TIMBER INDUST R Y

By 1928, fears of timber shortage were alleviated by a fall in consumption resulting from prolonged drought that disrupted mining operations and the increased use of oil and coal.142 This gave reason for reviving Hummel’s preWorld War I ambition for exporting Malayan woods.143 Guillemard’s successor, Hugh Clifford (1927–29), calculated the potential for expanding Malaya’s forest industry in the light of the mounting world shortage in softwoods. 144 The idea generated support for Cubitt’s reservation policy, reiterated after his retirement by High Commissioner Sir Cecil Clementi (1930–34).145 Moreover, the unreliability of wood supplies from land conversion supported the Forest Department’s programme of silvicultural operations for building up wood stocks, with an eye to exporting any surplus. The lack of success with marketing NTFP and the exigencies of the 1932 retrenchment were other factors that brought the Forest Department to focus its attention on timber exploitation and associated technical research. As the 1932 Retrenchment Commission stated, the department could no longer afford to pursue any aspect of scientific forestry other than that directly related to generating revenue and commerce.146 This watershed in Malayan forestry was marked by the retirement in 1931 of Foxworthy, whose wide-ranging research on economic forest produce gave way to C.F. Symington’s specialization on Dipterocarps, important for timber. J.N. Oliphant, a senior forester,147 was quick to link efficient timber utilization with ethical stewardship and environmental protection. 148 Forest conservation is a vital need in many parts of the tropics as a safeguard against deterioration of climate and soil; but the inhabitants of these regions will never learn to respect their forests, or to have any compunction in destroying them for the ephemeral benefits of shifting cultivation, unless they are taught to use them far more fully than they have been used hitherto … .149

Oliphant envisaged improving the economics of logging by upgrading the existing system under the Chinese. Though the Malays were expert tree fellers, Chinese expertise in sawing planks and their kongsi organizations put them in the lead.150 The panglung or Chinese timber extraction system was dominant

KWells_book_1.fm Page 106 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

106

in Johor, Negeri Sembilan, and Pahang, particularly in the Endau and Rompin areas. Small teams of loggers transported hand-felled trees from stump site to the river, along temporary dragging paths or sledge ways. The assembled logs were moved by water and then by road and rail to the sawmills. Heavier logs were usually converted to planks directly at stump sites.151 Apart from some reliance on Orang Asli for locating the richer timber stands, the industry was based largely on Chinese labour recruited mostly via Singapore. Some camps paid coolies monthly wages, others by the amount of timber felled or moved. As in the tin mines, payment was partly in the form of essential supplies such as salt, rice and fish. The low-capital and labourintensive Chinese logging operations ruled out European competition.152 Highlighting the initiative and adaptability of the Chinese sawyer responsible for the success of the industry, the Malay Mail, a popular Kuala Lumpur daily, commented: One must constantly admire the work of these men who penetrate the forests, often many miles from civilization, and lead a hard life for profits which are not excessive nor by any means certain. There is further proof of their enterprise in the reports of new machinery installed and working to capacity.153

By European and American standards, the Chinese sawmills were considered ‘very antiquated’. Yet the results obtained with cheap labour and without trained mechanics were judged to be ‘surprisingly good’. The availability of labour laid off from the mines154 was a further reason for upgrading, rather than attempting a radical change, which the low-capital Chinese industry was likely to resist.155 The Forest Department was seen as having a key role in providing the necessary technical aid and advice for placing the timber industry on a competitive footing with that in the Dutch-controlled Riau–Lingga Archipelago. 156 Appropriately, the technical services were expanded with a number of new appointments, including H.E. Desch as Wood Technologist157 and W.F. Chipp as Forest Engineer. In the absence of a professional entomologist, a keen amateur, F.G. Browne, State Forest Officer (SFO) in Kelantan, helped investigate the problem of ambrosia beetle borers in Malayan timbers. He also pioneered research on economical and environmentally friendly methods of biological control, using natural enemies of insect pests.158 In the main, realizing that the production exclusively of selected high-quality hardwoods for a specialized overseas market was complex, expensive and fraught with risks, the department decided to promote a more broad-based industry. Traditionally the panglung specialized in the extraction of mangrove wood for fuel and cengal, balau (Shorea spp.) and kapur for timber. But the department promoted utilization of a wider variety of timbers for domestic consumption, which would allow reservation of the favoured grades for export.159 Or, as Cubitt put it, the valuable woods were the ‘butter’, and those of general utility such as meranti and keruing (Dipterocarpus spp.) constituted the ‘bread’.160

KWells_book_1.fm Page 107 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Appropriating the Forest, 1901–41

•

107

Transport facilities for extending logging deeper into the interior posed a major problem.161 Buffalo haulage, which shifted a maximum 0.7 cu m per animal at the cost of about $1 per km, was too slow and expensive for moving substantial quantities of timber over long distances.162 Generally, short haulage by panglung or buffalo restricted extraction operations to areas accessible by roads and waterways.163 The extension of the railway to the east coast and the magnificent network of metalled roads built, particularly in the west coast to service the tin and rubber industries, facilitated log transportation. Though this gave the local industry a distinct advantage over that in Burma,164 large areas in the Malay States still remained inaccessible. The difficulty and cost of log transportation encouraged loggers to adopt the cost-effective practice of selecting the more expensive heavy-hardwoods, incurring a huge wastage of cheaper grades. To encourage intensive logging over a wider area for the greater utilization of medium-hardwoods, the government was obliged to provide supplementary roads, tramways and ropeways and to maintain selected rivers for floating timber to the sawmills.165 For laying the additional infrastructure, logging licensees were offered long-term permits and attractive timber concessions in exchange for labour. The scheme’s limited success demonstrated the highly speculative nature of Chinese enterprise and the absence of long-term investment in the industry.166 Under these circumstances, licensees were obliged to meet the cost of laying the partially metalled roads into the forest.167 In addition, many miles of two-foot tramways serviced the east coast kapur forests and the Bernam peat forests of Selangor.168 The extent to which improved communication boosted timber extraction was demonstrated in Keruh Reserve, Melaka, worked for cengal sleepers.169 Between 1923 and 1929, revenues from the reserve increased by some 460 per cent. 170 The introduction by Wearne Brothers in 1929 of the six-wheeler lorry, for use in rough country, was a further boost to the industry.171 Notwithstanding the expansion of roads and railways, river conveyance, where available and convenient, remained the cheapest and preferred mode for log transportation. Timber was floated downriver, fastened to lighter, buoyant species. The sawmills at Mentakab, Pahang, relied almost entirely on waterborne logs for export to Singapore, as did those at Teluk Anson, which supplied Penang.172 However, silting by mining activities impeded the wider use of rivers for transporting timber and many areas remained inaccessible. 173 In 1939, about 90 per cent of Pahang’s timber resources were believed to be beyond the reach of loggers.174 In the Korbu Reserve, Perak, logs were dragged by buffaloes over a rough and narrow track to the road, before conveyance to the sawmill at Sungai Siput. Difficulties of access implied commensurate labour costs. The attempt to introduce elephant dragging aborted and the Forest Department was resigned to the axiom that the ‘Chinese contractors can be trusted to know their own business’.175

KWells_book_1.fm Page 108 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

108

The government was better able to assist with improving sawing and grading operations. The forest engineer, W.F. Chipp,176 offered free advice to the Chinese on designing mills and abandoning inefficient methods of hand sawing.177 The timber business was slow in picking up but, by the time Oliphant left the FMS in 1935, the modern sawmill he had introduced, replacing the handsaw, revolutionized the industry. Sawmilling facilitated the conversion of many previously unused species and led to extraction by licensees of all utilizable timber in a single felling, thereby reducing cost.178 In 1937 there were 63 sawmills of all types179 and, apart from Selangor, the States of the FMS were selfsupporting in timber.180 The search for overseas markets, however, was frustrated by British Malaya’s badly timed entry into the international timber market.181 Exports to the UK suffered competition from very similar timbers produced by the Philippines, with an established market, and from rising freight charges for railways and shipping.182 Except in some areas such as Teluk Anson, where suitable water transport was available, the high cost of inland transportation, whether by rail or road, kept production costs high.183 Moreover, the sawmill industry, based on large capital investment, was less elastic in its response to market forces compared with traditional hand sawing.184 Overall, the Forest Department’s offer of free advice on scaling and grading held prospects of further improvement.185 It was hoped that upgrading existing east coast exports of cengal to China and kapur to Jeddah and Aden would help prepare the industry for the more discerning European market. 186 Despite the slow expansion of the export sector, the Forest Department outstripped the performance of counterpart services in the Empire in financial terms and in meeting domestic demand. Except in 1931, it showed a budget surplus, in contrast to deficits registered in Ceylon, Kenya and Nigeria. 187 By 1933 the FMS had also cast off its dependence on Australian timber for railway sleepers. Needs were fully met by the local industry, with Pahang, the lead producer of heavy-hardwoods, contributing 51.3 per cent. 188 THE ENIG MA OF PLANNED PRODUCTION

Fundamental to sustainability was planned production, which in turn was critically linked to reservation as State Land Forests were progressively logged and alienated. In fact, the run on wood when trade recovered after the Great Depression accelerated depletion of accessible State Land Forest. In North Perak, with some of the richest forests in the Peninsula, stocks were claimed to be nearly finished.189 By the mid-1930s, barring lowland reserves, the remaining west coast forests were confined, by and large, to the slopes of the Main Range.190 The decrease in State Land Forests resulted in increased dependence on Forest Reserves. As shown opposite (Figure 1), by 1933 Reserves contributed to an increasing proportion of the total wood output, until additional resources from the UFMS became available.191

KWells_book_1.fm Page 109 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Appropriating the Forest, 1901–41

•

109

100 90 80

P E R C E N TA G E

70 60 50 40 30 20 10

State & Alienated Land

37 19

19 3 19 2 33

28 19

23 19

18 19

13 19

08 19

19

04

0

Reserved Forests

Figure 1: Comparison of wood extracted from State and Reserved Forests in the FMS, 1904–37. Source: Annual Reports, 1913, 1933 and 1937.

Although there was heavy reliance on wood from the Reserved Forests, efforts at planned production were undermined by a decline in wood consumption due to a number of factors. The International Tin Restriction Scheme prolonged the general downturn in the mining industry.192 Furthermore, by 1931, extension of the east coast railway from Kuala Lipis to Tumpat completed the main FMS North-South line, limiting sleeper demand thereafter strictly to repair and replacement. The overall effect was a dramatic 39.7 per cent drop in the output of all classes of timber and fuel-wood between 1930 and 1931. 193 When the International Rubber Restriction Scheme (1934–38) was lifted widespread replanting put felled trees on the market (see Figure 1). 194 The decline in wood consumption was also assisted by competition from coal, oil and electricity and the reduced use of poles as dredge mining gradually replaced palung mining.195 As a consequence, forestry’s commercial RIF operations were affected and alternative departmental operations set back by the high cost and shortage of labour.196 The translocation of south Indian forest dwellers was considered but was not realized and forestry resorted to poison girdling, using sodium arsenite in RIF operations.197 The adoption of natural generation in Malayan siviculture, notwithstanding the use of poison girdling, was influenced by economics and practicality rather

KWells_book_1.fm Page 110 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

110

1400

FUEL (’000

CU M)

1200

1000

800

600

35 19

32 19

28 19 30

19

26 19

19 19

19

09

400

Figure 2: Amount of timber and fuel consumed, FMS, 1909–35. Source: Annual Reports.

than commitment to preserving the biological integrity of the forest. Artificial regeneration, as Oliphant noted, was daunting. The fact should be faced that artificial regeneration demands … a knowledge of the ecological growth conditions of the type of forest dealt with of such comprehensiveness and accuracy as is hardly likely to be acquired in respect of tropical rain forest in the course of a century’s work.198

Thus, avoiding the complexity of artificial regeneration by new planting, silvicultural efforts were directed to boosting natural regeneration from the extensive seed falls of dipterocarps in peak years of flowering. Wherever there was only a small demand for firewood, the growing stands were developed for good timber through bold, and even drastic, cuttings during RIF operations. 199 Under J.P. Mead (Director/Adviser, 1929–40),200 who succeeded Cubitt, the Forestry Department drew up an integrated programme for the intensive management of about 400,000 ha of primary forest to meet future needs. Based on the harvesting of medium-hardwood and heavy-hardwood stocks in a proportion of 2:1, at 60- and 120-year intervals, respectively, an annual yield of 1.1 million cu m was expected.201 By 1937, the 53,988 ha brought under the programme fell significantly short of the projected target.202 The low density of commercial species per ha, combined with the long cycles of regeneration, made for a complex formula for sustained production.203 Furthermore, sustain-

KWells_book_1.fm Page 111 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Appropriating the Forest, 1901–41

•

111

ability was hard to guarantee as planned production was jeopardized by sharp fluctuations in wood demand (Figure 2). By and large, unpredictable oscillations in the globally oriented Malayan economy and the experimental nature of managing tropical rain forests conspired against a neat formula for planned production. Forestry’s problems were brought fully within the domain of public knowledge. ‘Of all the commodities that Malaya produces’, a Malay Mail editorial commented, ‘the prospective demand for timber is perhaps the most difficult to assess with any degree of accuracy.’204 Waste and over-production were as much a problem as shortage. As the editorial stated: The presence of large virgin forests … is in some respects a danger, because in the absence of constant vigilance they are likely to lead to wasteful overproduction.205

The need for discretionary licensing and close supervision of logging was made all the more urgent by the extended scope of logging resulting from technical innovations in the industry.206 The elasticity of the timber market, shortfalls in the regeneration programme and the rapid alienation of richly stocked State Land Forest justified Mead’s efforts to extend reservation in the FMS beyond the 25 per cent target achieved in 1932. In Negeri Sembilan, for example, the percentage of Reserved Forests rose sharply from 31.8 in 1932 to 41.9 in 1940.207 Apart from the economic recovery and the new emphasis on developing an export market, an emerging public awareness of the value of forests may well have encouraged the Forest Department to pursue reservation (see pp. 154–155, 173–174). Despite an overall increase, there were discrepancies among the different States (Table 3). Table 3: Rate of reservation in the FMS, 1922–38 Total area (ha)

RF (ha)

RF (%)

SLF (%)

AL (%)

1922

7,122,500

945,816

13.1

73.2

13.7

1927

7,122,500

1,415,935

19.6

65.6

14.8

1932

7,122,500

1,829,835

25.7

58.6

15.7

~ Perak

2,020,200

700,207

34.7

45.4

19.9

~ Selangor

815,850

195,959

24.0

36.4

39.6

~ Negeri Sembilan

660,450

209,764

31.8

34.4

33.8

~ Pahang

3,626,000

724,009

20.0

75.3

4.7

1938

7,122,500

1,962,184

27.5

–

–

RF: Reserved Forest; SLF: State Land Forest, AL: Alienated Land Source: Annual Reports, 1932 and 1938

KWells_book_1.fm Page 112 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

112

In Selangor, which experienced the fastest pace of development, reservation failed to keep pace with rising consumption. Here, out of the 24 per cent of Reserved Forest, only 5 per cent was considered exploitable. The State relied heavily on imports from Pahang,208 where abundance of forests relative to the small population gave reservation a low priority. Contrastingly, in Negeri Sembilan, limited land and the problem of Chinese shifting cultivation spurred reservation in the interests of catchment protection for the Malay agricultural sector. THE IMPLICATIONS OF DECENT R ALIZATION

The Conservator’s inability to exert a more even influence on reservation in the States demonstrated his limited powers. The 1925 Forest Enactment, while giving the Conservator full control over forest administration, made clear that ultimate power rested, incontrovertibly, with the Ruler-in-Council. It reinforced the fundamental dichotomy in forest management between State legislative power and Federal executive control that has since remained a source of contention. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to limit the power of the Ruler of the State in Council to enter into special agreements granting on such conditions and for such term as may be prescribed the sole right to exploit timber and other forest produce over such areas as may be specified in each case … .209

The hard-headed policy of economic forestry pushed by Mead and his Deputy, Oliphant, enabled the Department to ride out the challenges presented by the depression and decentralization. Though it was considered imperative that the railways, survey, postal and customs departments continued as Federal Departments, the decentralization proposal outlined in 1931 earmarked Forestry and Agriculture for devolution.210 These sectors, founded on the States’ sovereign control over land, and under the supervision of the Federal Secretariat, were classified as ‘Malayan Departments’.211 Inevitably, the envisaged development of the Forest Department as a central agency for coordinated forest management was threatened. Under the proposed devolution, the Chief Conservator, designated as ‘Adviser’ to the State Forest Officer, would lose his executive powers.212 In resisting the proposed change, Mead argued that the new arrangement would impede scientific and technical progress at a stage when tropical forestry was still in its infancy.213 He stressed that the coordination of data, peer review and the adoption of new techniques, with their constant updating, would be hard to achieve in the absence of a central authority. Neither could legislation be enforced effectively if the Conservator’s powers were merely advisory. To maintain technical progress there must be some effective guiding authority and I should view with concern the introduction of a system conferring unlimited discretion on State Forest Officers to decide technical issues … .214

Mead was evidently emboldened by Governor Hugh Clifford’s bid for the

KWells_book_1.fm Page 113 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Appropriating the Forest, 1901–41

•

113

retention of sufficient executive power by the Federal government. 215 When, following a long delay, decentralization was finally completed in 1935, a Federal Secretary, with reduced powers, replaced the Chief Secretary and a Forest Adviser replaced the Chief Conservator. But in compliance with the recommendations of the Wilson Report on decentralization, provision was made for retaining some measure of central authority. This was realized by a provision for appointing the Adviser during the course of his State tours as ex-officio State Forest Officer, the incumbent acting for the duration as Deputy Forest Officer.216 In accordance with the aims of devolution, under the 1934 Forest Enactment the power to make forest rules, previously exercised by the Resident subject to the approval of the Chief Secretary, devolved nominally to the Ruler-in Council.217 Without the checks and balances that the Chief Secretary had provided, ultimate power rested with the Resident, who consulted the Forest Adviser only on technical matters.218 The loss of forestry’s federal power was, however, compensated in part by the appointment of the SFO as ex-officio member of the State Council.219 This was a step in the right direction. By placing forestry on a par with the other essential services represented on the State Council, the new arrangement allowed for open dialogue with other departments with common interests, principally agriculture and mining. Given that decentralization was aimed at returning power to the State administration, the SFO’s membership on the State Council, which held ultimate jurisdiction over all land, placed forestry in a potentially influential position. The arrangement was less satisfactory with reference to the UFMS, transferred gradually from Siamese to British protection following the 1909 AngloSiamese treaty. The Forest Adviser visited these States purely in an advisory capacity, at the behest of individual State governments. Mead, however, remained confident that with most of the legal difficulties resolved in accordance with the Wilson Report, the FMS forest service would be a model for the UFMS, paving the way for uniformity and Peninsula-wide coordination.220 Under the new constitutional arrangements, the forest service was expected to help achieve the ultimate goal of decentralization through fostering a spirit of cooperation among the States, gradually drawing UFMS within a common policy framework. 221 This was realized to the extent that, though each State nominally formulated independent policies and passed its own forest laws, in reality such decisions were based on the ‘advice’ of the Federal authority. Practical problems that stood in the way of a uniform forest management were less easily resolved. Decentralization compounded the anomalies inherent in the segmentary structure of British rule in the Peninsula, one result of which was the escalation of cross-border smuggling of jungle produce between the FMS and the UFMS. State-based forest officers were unable to pursue offenders beyond the boundaries of their particular State, and cooperation between States in prosecuting offenders was often frustrated by difficulties in ascertaining the provenance of goods.222 These setbacks aside, the Malayan forestry service,

KWells_book_1.fm Page 114 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

114

through retaining an overall influence and lead in evolving a common policy for the Peninsula, was true to the spirit of the new federal system, aimed at balancing State and Federal powers. As Mead pointed out, the Malayan forest organization was not a ‘forest department’ in the ordinary sense. It may be rather defined as an agglomeration of small forest departments, concerned with ten separate territories, each having its own forest legislation, the whole being held together by a common and interchangeable staff of trained officers, joint research facilities and a central coordinating body, exercising executive control in some territories and not in others, but always exerting some influence towards co-operation and a broadly common forest policy [my emphasis].223

In summary, from the colonial perspective, the constraints imposed by forest management were consistent with the principle of resource sustainability. Less easy to justify in socio-economic terms was the consequent marginalization of indigenous participants in the forest economy. It betrayed the Forest Department’s role as a service provider for capitalist industry under a management system that well-funded Chinese enterprise took advantage of, backed by skilled labour. The pre-eminence of the Chinese in the early NTFP and timber industries presaged their integral role in the nation’s forest sector and their unique partnership with state-managed enterprise. Although the timber industry had made great strides, the silvicultural techniques for promoting selected timber species and the extended scale of logging with improved technology represented biological intrusions that were to increase progressively during the course of the century. More immediately, sustained yield based on planned production fundamental to colonial forestry, remained an enigma. The federal structure of administration that facilitated resource sharing proved a clear disincentive to the adoption by individual States of sustainable forest management as envisaged by Guillemard. This weakness was compounded by fierce competition within component sectors of economic enterprise for forest and land resources. Thus, in acting out its role as a key agent in land use, it became imperative for forestry to seek a rational formula for accommodating rival interests within the long-term objective of forest preservation. The implications of this formidable task are taken up in the next two chapters. NOTES 1 2 3

In C.J. McCabe Reay, President, Retrenchment Commission, Thirty-Eighth Interim Report, for the High Commissioner, Singapore: Govt. Press, 1923, p. 27. R. Emerson, Malaysia: A Study in Direct and Indirect Rule, Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press, 1964, pp. 145, 149. ‘Amendment to the Timber and Jungle Produce Rules’, Gazette Notification No. 35, 2 March 1908, No. 4, vol. XII, State of Pahang Enactments Passed in Council, 1908, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1908, p. 42; Gazette Notification No. 344, 6 Aug. 1909, No. 25, vol. XIV, State of Negri Sembilan Enactments Passed in Council in 1909, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1910, p. 156; Gazette Notification No. 677, 11 Aug. 1909, No. 30, vol. XXII, State of Perak Enactments Passed in Council in 1909, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1910, p. 156.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 115 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Appropriating the Forest, 1901–41 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24

25 26 27

•

115

Gazette Notification No. 35, 2 March 1908, pp. 41–43. See for example, ‘Timber and Jungle Produce Rules’, Gazette Notification No. 35, 2 March 1908, p. 42. These included rambung (Ficus elastica), sondek (Palaquium maingayi), penak (Neobalanocarpus heimii) and taban. Selangor Government Gazette Notification No. 333, No. 17, vol. XVI, 23 June 1905, Selangor Laws, Statutes, Enactments 1905, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1905, p. 399. Conservator of Forests to Fed. Secretary, 22 April 1907, CF 346/07. Ravi Rajan, ‘Science, nature, and governing economy: Empire forestry and its colonization of Britain’. Paper presented at the International Conference on Forest and Environmental History of the British Empire and Commonwealth’, 19–21 March 2003, University of Sussex, UK, n.p. First Empire Forestry Conference: Proceedings, Statements, London, 1920, p. 72. T.S. Adams, DO, Kuala Kangsar, Report on the exploration of forests east of Sungai Siput, 1 Nov. 1928, No. 27, in DF 692/27. Kandar: bundles of wood, borne on the shoulder, suspended from the two ends of a pole. Products on State Lands, No. 4 of 1896, Pahang Laws, 1889–97, Kuala Lumpur, Selangor Govt. Press, 1898, p. 65; Order of 25 October 1894, ‘Timber Rules’, Government of Negri Sembilan, Orders and Regulations, Kuala Lumpur: Selangor Govt. Press, 1896, p. 39; Land Enactment 1897, Timber and Jungle Produce Rules, Gazette Notification, 28 March 1903, No. 10, vol. XIV, Selangor Enactments Passed in Council, 1903, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1903, p. 4; Enactment No. 20 of 1907, ‘… To Consolidate and Amend the Law relating to Forest and Forest Produce’, State of Perak, Enactments Passed in Council in 1907, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1908, p. 96; Forest Enactment, 1925, FMS Enactments 1925, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1926, p. 269. ‘Right of Malays to take timber from Forest Reserves for their own use’, Conservator of Forests to Fed. Secretary, 3 May 1907; Memo, Legal Adviser, 2 May 1907, CF 359/07. See pp. 12 and 143 n. 3 for a discussion of the ruler’s claims on land and forests. Clauses 3 & 4, State of Perak Enactments Passed in Council, 1907, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1907, pp. 93–94. J.N. Oliphant, ‘State forests of the Empire’, Empire Forestry Journal, 11 (1932) p. 241. Wyatt-Smith, Manual of Malayan Silviculture, I, pp. 1–7. Burn-Murdoch, ‘Forests of Malaya’, p. 329. FMS Annual Report, 1918, Kuala Lumpur, 1919, p. 10. Report on Forest Administration (RFA) 1923, Supplement to the FMS Government Gazette (Hereafter GG), 13 June 1924, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1924, p. 4; RFA 1927, Supplement to FMS GG, 25 May 1928, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1928, p. 4. RFA 1932, Supplement to FMS GG, 9 Sept. 1933, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1933, p. 5. Retention of a minimum 25–33 per cent was the quota of Production Forest targeted in colonial forestry. Although set at 25 per cent, the 30 per cent target that Cubitt recommended to government was adopted by his successors. See G.E.S. Cubitt, ‘Federated Malay States’, First Empire Forestry Conference, London, 1920, p. 55. The validity of any set figure as a universal norm, independent of specific circumstances, has recently been questioned. See A.J. Grayson, ‘The desirability of forest cover as viewed 100 years ago’, International Forestry Review, 3, iv (2001) pp. 265–271. The 25 per cent Reserved Forest set aside in the Peninsula included Protection Forests. Later, the policy was revised, setting a 25 per cent target for Production Forests alone. See p. 266. F.W. Foxworthy, Commercial Woods of the Malay Peninsula, Malayan, Forest Records, No. 1, Singapore: Methodist Publishing House, 1921, p. 6. One third of the opium revenues from the mines in 1904 was calculated to be less than a third of the value of ‘free’ wood, at $5.30 per cu m. ‘Notes from the Federated Malay States’, Indian Forester, 30, x, (1904) p. 458; ‘Forest Administration in the Federated Malay States 1904’, Indian Forester, 31, ii (1905) p. 646; ‘Report on Forest Administration in the Federated Malay States for 1909’, Indian Forester, 37, iii & iv (1911) p. 71. Forest Enactment, 1925, p. 271. FMS Pahang Administration Report 1918, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1919, p. 9. ‘Forest Administration in the Federated Malay States, 1904’, Indian Forester, 31, ii (1905) p. 646.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 116 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

116

28 ‘Report on the Forest Administration in the Federated Malay States for 1909’, Indian Forester, 37, i (1911) p. 71. Based on an estimated 200 sleepers cut from each cengal tree, the timber supplied for sleepers in 1909 by the Forest Reserves represented the felling of 1,260 trees over an extensive area. See A.M. Burn-Murdoch ‘Forests in the Federated Malay States’, Indian Forester, 37, i (1911) p. 29. 29 Foxworthy, Commercial Woods, p. 4. 30 Pioneered in about 1910 by the German forester, Cornelius Hummel, RIF aimed at freeing up the canopy with the removal of bertam (Eugeissona tristis) and class II timbers in favour of commercially valuable species such as taban, kapur and red meranti (Shorea spp.). This, as Hummel put it, was ‘helping the useful species and fighting their enemies’. He was confident that RIF would raise productivity sufficiently to eliminate existing supplements from the Netherlands East Indies and allow for exports to China and Europe. C. Hummel, The Value of the Forests of the Federated Malay States, Kuala Lumpur: FMS Govt. Printing, 1913, pp. 5–6; Watson, ‘Some materials for the forest history of Malaya’, pp. 65–66. 31 Arthur Sanger-Davies started his training at Cooper’s Hill and completed it at Oxford before joining the FMS Forest Department in 1907. On retiring in 1937, he settled in Berastagi, Sumatra, Van Steenis-Kruseman, Flora Malesiana, I, p. 459. 32 Commercial Regeneration Felling came from observations made in 1919 of rapid regeneration in Perak and Selangor, following RIF, and involved pole and firewood extraction and bertam-cutting. Wyatt-Smith, Manual of Malayan Silviculture, I, p.1–2/16, 2/3–2/5; RFA 1929, Supplement to the FMS GG, 29 Aug. 1930, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1930, p. 5; Watson, ‘Some materials for a forest history of Malaya’, pp. 66–67; Wyatt-Smith, Manual of Malayan Silviculture, vol. I, p. I–2/20. 33 FMS Annual Report, Selangor Administration, 1918, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1919, p. 5; RFA 1922, Supplement to FMS GG, 15 June 1923, p. 11. 34 Wyatt-Smith, Manual of Malayan Silviculture, I, pp. I–2/–16–17. 35 Due to theft and wastage suffered by Singapore’s mangrove forests, the Dindings was the main supplier of mangrove wood for the S.S. Annual Departmental Reports of the SS, As laid before the Legislative Council, 1924, Singapore, 1926, p. 97. 36 Conservator of Forests to Dy Agent, Malay States Information Service, 30 Jan. 1925, CF 153/ 25. 37 The principal species used for charcoal manufacture from the family Rhizophoraceae, included bakau kurap (Rhizophora mucronata), bakau minyak (Rhizophora apiculata) and tumu (Bruguiera gymnorhiza). Tannin was extracted largely from bakau kurap. J.G. Watson, Mangrove Forests of the Malay Peninsula, Malayan Forest Records, No. 6, Singapore: Fraser & Neave, 1928, pp. 22, 192, 197–198. 38 K.W.E. Crouchley, ‘Mangroves’, Journal of the Cambridge University Forestry Association, 2, iii (1925) pp. 20–21, 23. In 1918, in an attempt to curb inflation, the Forest Department in Perak undertook the exploitation of mangrove wood. FMS Annual Report 1918, p. 10. 39 Gazette Notification No. 35, 2 March 1908, No. 4, vol. XII, State of Pahang Enactments Passed in Council, 1908, p.42; Gazette No. 8148, 24 Dec. 1925, No. 26, vol. XVII, FMS Enactments 1925, p. 280. 40 This included dammar, camphor, gaharu, minyak keruing, rattan and getah sondek. C.W.C. Parr, Resident, Pahang Administration Report, 1916, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1917, p. 10. 41 ‘Abolition of export duty on forest produce other than timber and dammar’, G.E.S. Cubitt, Conservator of Forests to all Dy Conservator of Forests, 7 Feb. 1916; Cubitt to UnderSecretary FMS, 14 Oct. 1916, CF 211/16. 42 Gazette Notification No. 677, 11 Aug. 1909, No. 30, vol. XXII, State of Perak Enactments Passed in Council, 1909, pp. 147–151. 43 Selangor Enactment No. 18 of 1907, State of Selangor Enactments Passed in Council, 1907, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1907, pp. 91–99; Gazette Notification No. 13, 13 Dec. 1907, vol. XX, No. 1010, State of Perak Enactment No. 20, State of Perak Enactments Passed in Council, 1907, pp. 91–107; Gazette Notification No. 35, 2 March 1908, No. 4, vol. XII, State of Pahang Enactments Passed in Council, 1908, pp. 41–43; Gazette Notification No. 344, 6 Aug. 1909, No. 25, vol. XIV, State of Negri Sembilan Enactments Passed in Council, 1909, pp. 147–161; Gazette Notification No. 677, 11 Aug. 1909, No. 30, vol. XXII, State of Perak Enactments Passed in Council, 1909, pp. 156–157.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 117 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Appropriating the Forest, 1901–41

•

117

44 R.S.F. Walker, Acting Resident, Report on Perak, 15 April 1901 in, Report on FMS 1901, Parliamentary Papers, LXVI (1902) p. 890. 45 By the 1880s a number of rajas in Selangor were appointed as penghulu and Forest Rangers. Sadka, The Protected Malay States, pp. 276, 286, 288. 46 The Orang Asli, though considered less responsible, proved better at patrolling the more remote areas than their Malay counterparts. In consideration of their pre-literate status, conventional recruitment procedures were waived and their appointments merely communicated to the Conservator. Cubitt, Circular No. 6/21, 21 Dec. 1921, Ad. F 328/3; SFO, Perak South, to Forest Adviser, 28 Aug. 1937, Ad. F 328/37. 47 Indra Munshi Saldanha, ‘Colonialism and professionalism: The German forester in India’, Environment and History, 2 (1996) p. 197. Even by the 1920s, only 2.5 per cent of the forest in the UK was in the hands of the state. R.L Robinson, ‘Forestry in the Empire’, Empire Forestry Journal, 1 (1922) p. 21. 48 Peluso, Rich Forests, Poor People, pp. 63, 65. 49 Stebbing, Forests of India, I, pp. 207, 396; II (1923), p. 4. 50 Stebbing, Forests of India, II, pp. 45–59. 51 Engineering and forestry were integrated within the Indian Forest Service. The Indian Forest Officer was deemed an engineer ‘to a greater or lesser degree’ and was involved in the construction and repair of buildings, communications, roads, bridges and tramways. See Anon, ‘Diversity of a forest officer’s work in India’, Journal of the Cambridge University Forestry Association, II, 1924 (ii) p. 11. 52 Personally selected by Brandis, William Schlich (later Sir William) began his service in 1867 with the Indian Forest Service in Burma and became Conservator and Inspector-General in the subcontinent. 53 The Central Institute for Forestry established in 1921 was incorporated within Oxford University. ‘Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Imperial Forestry Education’, Report from Commissioners, Inspectors and Others, Cmd. 1166, XII, 727, London, HMSO, 1921, p. 8. 54 Stebbing, Forests of India, II, pp. 307–313. 55 K. Hannam, ‘Utilitarianism and the identity of the Indian Forest Service’, Environment and History, 6 (2000) pp. 212–213. 56 W. Schlich, Oxford, to the Under-Secretary of State, 10 Jan. 1907, CO 273/335/1427; Watson, ‘Some materials for a forest history of Malaya’, pp. 65–77. 57 J. Anderson, Singapore, 20 July 1906, to the Rt. Hon. Earl of Elgin and Kincardine, CO273/ 322/ 30704; Anderson to Earl of Elgin and Kincardine, 17 Dec. 1906; CO 273/321/46503. Apart from Cubitt and Foxworthy, who were exempted, others took the Lower Civil Service Examination in Malay and were encouraged to proceed to the higher examination. McCab Reay, Thirty-Eighth Interim Report, p. 89. 58 W. Schlich, Principal Professor of Forestry, Royal Technical Engineering College, Forest Hill, 9 July 1904, to Under-Secretary of State, Colonial Office, CO 273/306/24678. 59 Schlich, to Under-Secretary of State, 16 Oct. 1906, CO 273/325/38329; G.V. Fiddes, Downing Street, to Schlich, 22 Jan. 1907, CO 273/335/1427; Schlich to Under-Secretary of State, 26 Feb. 1907. CO 273/335/7263. 60 Stebbing, The Forests of India, II, p. 463. 61 Trained in Bavaria, Hummel served in Pahang and then in Selangor until the outbreak of World War I in 1914. Watson, ‘Some materials for a forest history of Malaya’, p. 65. 62 Sir Arthur Young, High Commissioner, to Lewis Harcourt, M.P. 27 May 1914, CO 273/410/ 22557. 63 Enclosure, Letter from B.H.F. Barnard, in Arthur Young to Lewis Harcourt, M.P., 27 May 1914, CO 273/410/22557. 64 Watson, ‘Some materials for a forest history of Malaya’, p. 67. 65 Customarily, recruits had a degree in natural science from England, Wales or Ireland, or a degree in pure science from Edinburgh and, later, from Aberdeen or Bangor. Paper No. 6, submitted by E.S. Cubitt, 9 April 1918, Proceedings of the Federal Council of the Federated Malay States (hereafter PFC FMS), 1918, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1919, pp. C29-C30. 66 W. Roff, The Origins of Malay Nationalism, Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press, 1967, pp. 97–100, 115–116, 118–119.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 118 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

118

67 The Imperial Forestry Institute, to which the FMS made an annual contribution, disseminated information on technical forestry, trained probationers and conducted refresher courses. As of 1934 it was fully incorporated into the University and placed under the Department of Forestry, headed by a Director. Secretary of State to Sir Cecil Clementi, High Commissioner, 11 Aug. 1932, No.1, DF 712/32; P. Cunliffe-Lister, Downing Street, to Sir Shenton Thomas, High Commissioner, 29 March 1935, No. 6, DF 712/32. 68 Training foresters was regarded a matter of priority. Ravi Rajan, ‘Empire forestry and its colonization of Britain’. n.p. 69 Justification for the expansion was the rapid pace of development in the FMS; the anticipated incorporation of the forests of the UFMS into the Malayan forest administration; and the need for new recruits to spend a probationary year before taking up responsible positions. Paper No. 6, Cubitt, 9 April, PFC FMS 1918, pp. C29-C30; McCabe Reay, Thirty-Eighth Interim Report, pp. 64–65; Report of the Federated Malay States Retrenchment Commission, Appointed by His Excellency the High Commissioner, 9 March 1932, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press. The successful retention of professional staff and the importance of the Perak and Pahang forests enabled Cubitt to extend forest management in the two States. They were each divided into two administrative units with their respective headquarters, namely, Perak North (Taiping) and Perak South (Batu Gajah); and Pahang East (Kuantan) and Pahang West (Kuala Lipis). Report of the Federated Malay States Retrenchment Commission, p. 53. 70 McCabe Reay, Thirty-Eighth Interim Report, p. 57. 71 President, Forest Research Institute and College, Dehra Dun to Conservator, Jan. 1922, DF 153/33. 72 Paper No 28: ‘Review of … the FMS’, 22 & 23 Oct., PFC FMS 1934, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1935, p. C298. 73 G. Wilkinson, Acting Conservator of Forests, Sungai Patani, Kedah to Adviser, Forestry, No. 1, No. 69, DF 150/32; Acting Principal, Sultan Idris Training College, Tanjung Malim, 12 Sept. 1939, to Adviser, Forestry, No. 69, DF 150/32. 74 A. Keir, Ilmu Tanam2an [Ilmu Tanaman] or ‘Agricultural Skills’ was published by Messrs. Printers Ltd., Trafalgar Square. G. Wilkinson, Acting Conservator of Forests, Kedah, 26 Jan. 1932, Nos. 1 & 69, CF 150/32. Keir was Principal of the Matang Teachers Training College and, later, was Acting Inspector of Schools, S.S. and FMS. 75 Paper No. 6, submitted by Cubitt, 9 April, PFC FMS 1918, p. C27. 76 A graduate of Cornell University, Foxworthy worked as botanist at the Bureau of Science, Manila, 1906–1911. He was transferred subsequently to the Bureau of Forestry and served, simultaneously, as Assistant to the Professor of dendrology at Manila. Following a distinguished career in the FMS as botanist and wood technologist, he retired in 1931. Unlike others who had served in the monsoon forests of India and Burma, he was the first professional forester to arrive in the FMS with experience of the moist tropics. His knowledge of the timbers of the Indo-Malayan region was described as ‘probably unrivalled’. Van Steenis-Kruseman, Flora Malesiana, I, pp. 180–181; Watson, ‘Some materials for the forest history of Malaya’, p. 76; FMS Annual Report 1917, p. 9. 77 Paper No. 6, submitted by Cubitt, 9 April, PFC FMS 1918, pp. C26, C31. G.E.S., Cubitt, ‘Forestry in Malaya’, British Malaya, 17 (1943) p. 226. The temporary buildings were erected in 1926 and the institution completed in 1929. ‘The History of the Forest Department, 1901– 1951’, P/H5, Arkib Negara. 78 With the appointment of T.A. Buckley as forest chemist the Forest Department no longer had to rely on the Department of Agriculture for this service. RFA 1927, p. 2. 79 RFA 1929, p. 11. 80 Foxworthy, Minor Forest Products of the Malay Peninsula, p. 151. 81 McCabe Reay, Thirty-Eighth Interim Report, pp. 57, 89. 82 Burkill, Dictionary of Economic Products, I, pp. 768–770. 83 H.W. Woolley, ‘A note on the damar pernak industry’, Malayan Forester, I, v (1932), p. 202; J.C.K. Marshall,‘The Malayan damar penak business in Negeri Sembilan’, Malayan Forester, 3, iv (1934), p. 189. 84 Marshall,‘The Malayan damar penak business in Negeri Sembilan’, p. 189. 85 FMS Pahang Administration Report, 1918, Kuala Lumpur, 1918, p. 8. 86 Diary, A.M. Burn-Murdoch, Conservator, 21 Jan. 1907, DF 264/07. Dammar was collected both by bark tapping and opportunistic gathering of lumps that occur naturally. J.H. de Beer

KWells_book_1.fm Page 119 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Appropriating the Forest, 1901–41

87 88 89 90

91 92

93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107

108 109 110 111

•

119

and M.J. McDermott, Economic Value of Non-Timber Products in Southeast Asia, with emphasis on Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, Netherlands Committee for IUCN, 1989, The Netherlands, p. 38. T.A.Buckley, The damars of the Malay Peninsula, Malayan Forest Records, No. 11, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Printers, 1932, pp. 1–2; Cubitt to Under-Secretary to Government, 8 May 1922, CF 425/22. Marshall, ‘The Malayan damar penak business in Negeri Sembilan’, pp. 188–191. ‘Departmental exploitation of damar’, Conservator of Forests to Stephen, Paul & Co., Singapore, 1 May 1922, CF 425/22. Held on the occasion of the visit of H.R.H. the Prince of Wales to India and the Far East, the Malaya-Singapore Exhibition had a representative display of Malayan forest produce. It was aimed at widening public knowledge of the Peninsula’s flora and the work of the Forest Department. It also served as a ‘dress rehearsal’ for the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley that highlighted the gutta-percha industry. RFA 1922, p. 13; RFA 1923, p. 16; RFA 1924, 10 July 1924, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1926, p. 9. As a result of the Exhibition, London agents were appointed for the sale of dammar and gutta-percha. Conservator of Forests to Under-Secretary, FMS and S.S., 8 May 1922, CF 425/ 22; RFA 1924, p. 12. The appointment of James G. Watson, trained entirely in Germany, was unusual. Having joined the Agricultural Department in 1913, he became Forest Economist in 1926 and later headed the research unit of FRI. He succeeded Mead as Director of Forestry in Oct. 1940, was interned by the Japanese during World War II and retired in 1946. Van SteenisKruseman, Flora Malesiana, 1950, p. 561. Phillips joined the FMS Forest Department in 1901 following his training in England, Germany and India. He served, successively, as Asst Forest Officer in Perak and Selangor and Dy Conservator of Forests in Pahang and Negeri Sembilan. RFA 1922, pp. 11–12; RFA 1925, Supplement to FMS GG, 11 June 1926, pp. 5–6. RFA 1924, Supplement to FMS GG, 10 July 1925, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1926, p. 4. RFA 1923, pp. 12–13; Marshall, ‘The Malayan damar penak business in Negeri Sembilan’, p. 191. J. Gould, Americans in Sumatra, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1961, p. 17. RFA 1929, p. 17. Woolley, ‘A note on the damar pernak industry’, p. 204. Harrison, An Illustrated Guide, pp. 90–91. Dy Conservator of Forests, Perak, to the Conservator of Forests, FMS, 19 Dec. 1919, CF 719/15. For an account of the leaf extraction of gutta-percha, see Staniforth Smith, Senator, Report on the FMS and Java, For the Parliament of Australia, Victoria, Australia: J. Kemp, 1906, pp. 36–37. Fyfe, ‘Gutta-percha’, p. 27; Price of Minor Forest Produce, CF No. 3, 334/34. In 1928, for instance, a commercial company, associated with the cable industry, maintained about 400 ha in Pahang in bush form. E.A. Strouts, ‘Minor forest products of the Malay Peninsula’, Journal of the Cambridge University Forestry Association, 3, iii (1928) p. 10. Paper No. 18, 31 Oct. 1910, Federal Council Enactments, 1909–11, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1911, pp. C159-C162. RFA 1922, pp. 11–12; RFA 1923, p. 14; RFA 1924, p. 10; RFA 1929, pp. 17–18. In the interests of encouraging Malay entrepreneurship, in 1925 Cubitt granted to Dato Sri Indera Lela of Perak a monopoly licence for jelutong extraction from Cior Reserve and a formula for its preparation designed by FRI. This favour was extended despite the State Conservator’s reservations that the Dato, by virtue of his ‘exalted position’, might exert an unfair advantage over small pioneer tappers. ‘Jelutong tapping by Dato Seri Indera Lela’, Watson, Dy Conservator of Forests, Perak North, Taiping, to Aid-de-Camp to Sultan of Perak, Kuala Kangsar, 19 Sept. 1925; Watson to Cubitt, Chief Conservator of Forests, 19 Sept. 1925; Cubitt to Watson, 23 Sept. 1925; Cubitt to Watson, 15 Dec. 1925, CF 867/25. RFA 1923, p. 14. Cant, Pahang, p. 134. RFA 1928, Supplement to FMS GG, 5 July 1929, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1930, p. 29. RFA 1929, pp. 17–19.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 120 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

120

112 Pahang Annual Report, 1938, quoted in Cant, Pahang, p. 134. 113 A.B. Walton, ‘Jelutong tapping’, Malayan Forester, 6, ii (1937) ii, pp. 17, 19. 114 The rattan preparation sheds in Singapore were located mainly on Bukit Timah Road and Thompson Road. The arduous process was conducted by an experienced workforce. The bamboos were rubbed over with sand to remove the papery bark, bleached in sulphur fumes, sorted into three classes according to length, colour and diameter and finally packed into bundles of 100. P. Phillips, Dy Conservator of Forests to the Conservator of Forests, 9 Jan. 1922, No. 5, DF 163/21. 115 RFA 1925, p. 25. 116 RFA 1922, p. 12. 117 In 1922 the FMS consigned 1,410 ‘Melaka cane’ to Messrs Dawson and Co. in London. RFA 1927, Supplement to FMS GG, 25 May 1928, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press. 1929, p. 20. 118 ‘Timber and minor forest products of the Malay Peninsula’, from the Manchester Guardian, 10 March 1925, in CF 335/25. 119 Annual Report, Forest Administration, 1932, CF 1/32. 120 Memo, DO, Kuala Pilah, Aug. 1927, No. 2, CF 654/27. 121 Among the European companies that traded in NTFP were Messrs Bruikman & Co., Jager & Co., Hattunbach Lazarus & Co., Boustead & Co. and Katz Brothers. P. Phillips to Conservator of Forests, 9 July 1922, No. 5, DF 163/21. 122 Mead to Dy Agent, 31 May 1935, Malayan Information Agency, London, No. 8, CF 223/35. 123 Cant, Pahang, p. 134. 124 See Dunn, Rain-Forest Collectors, pp. 91–94, 116. 125 Speech, Sir Laurence Guillemard, 21 Nov. 1922, PFC FMS 1922, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1923, p. B64. 126 The Empire Forestry Conference met in 1920 (London), 1922 (Canada), 1928 (Australia and New Zealand), 1935 (South Africa), 1946 (London) and 1952 (Canada) and subsequently became the Commonwealth Forestry Conference. For an account of its evolution and proceedings see Ravi Rajan, ‘Science, nature and governing economy’, n.p. 127 Proceedings of the First Empire Forestry Conference, p. 72. 128 Chief Secretary, FMS Annual Report, 1922. 129 Foxworthy, Commercial Woods, pp. 7–8. 130 Apart from 14,000 cu m imported, the rest was extracted in the Peninsula. 131 Foxworthy, Commercial Woods, p. 4; Cubitt, ‘Federated Malay States’, Proceedings of the First Empire Forestry Conference, p. 57. 132 Forest Adviser to British Adviser, Terengganu, 9 Feb. 1939, No.1, Ad. F 112/39. 133 Foxworthy, Commercial Woods, p. 9. 134 RFA 1927, pp. 7, 18. 135 Foxworthy, Commercial Woods, pp. 8–11, 18. 136 RFA 1925, pp. 11–12. 137 RFA 1927, p. 28. 138 G.E.S. Cubitt, Conservator of Forests, 20 June 1918, to Federal Secretary, Paddy Planting within Forest Reserves, 27 Feb. 1918, DF 194/18. 139 Cubitt, to Federal Secretary, 20 June 1918, DF 194/18. 140 This survey covered all of Perak, except the extreme north and east along the Main Range; the whole of Selangor excluding the swamp between the Selangor and Bernam Rivers; most of Negeri Sembilan; and roughly three-fourths of Pahang. RFA 1923, p. 1. 141 RFA 1928, p. 18; Cubitt, ‘Forestry in Malaya’, p. 225. 142 RFA 1928, p. 13. 143 Imperial Conference Report of the Empire, Forestry Sub-Committee, Hugh Clifford, High Commissioner, Kuala Lumpur, 1 Aug. 1927, CO 273/490/27. 144 Speech by the High Commissioner, Sir Hugh Clifford, 17 Nov. 1927, PFC FMS 1927, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1928, p. B119. 145 RFA 1930, Supplement to FMS GG, 3 July 1931, Kuala Lumpur, Govt. Press, 1932, p. 4. 146 Report of the Federated Malay States Retrenchment Commission, p. 52.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 121 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Appropriating the Forest, 1901–41

•

121

147 Following many years of service in the Indian Forest Service, Oliphant became Conservator, British Honduras. His appointment to the FMS marked the Peninsula’s entry into the Colonial Unification Scheme. In 1935 he was made Director of the Imperial Forestry Institute, Oxford, where he served for 3 years, following which he became Chief Conservator of Forests, Nigeria. Others in the FMS who were transfecurred to positions elsewhere in the Empire under the Unification Scheme were J.S. Smith, to Fiji, and T.A. Strong, who became Director of Forestry in Ceylon. Watson, ‘Some materials for a forest history of Malaya’, pp. 69–71. 148 Watson, ‘Some materials for a forest history of Malaya’, p. 70. 149 J.N. Oliphant ‘Development and use of mixed forest: Economics of timber extraction in the tropics’, pp. 8–9, n.d., CF 263/37. 150 Rathborne, Camping and Tramping in Malaya, pp. 134–136. 151 D.B. Arnot, ‘Timber extraction in Johor’, Empire Forestry Journal, 8, ii (1929) pp. 233–237. 152 Rathborne, Camping and Tramping, pp. 134–136; Anon, ‘Notes of the Resident’s visits to the districts of Selangor’, Selangor Journal, vol. II, No. 25, 24 Aug. 1894, p. 414. 153 Editorial, ‘Our forest assets’, Malay Mail, 17 Aug. 1938. 154 Oliphant, ‘Development and use of mixed forest’, p. 9. See Table 6.2 ‘Tin-Mining Labour Force …’, in, J. K. Sundaram, A Question of Class: Capital, the State, and Uneven Development in Malaya, Singapore: OUP, 1986, pp. 164–165. 155 Annual Report, Forest Administration, 1932, CF 1/32. 156 McCabe Reay, Thirty-Eighth Interim Report, p. 57. For an account of the Chinese industry in east Sumatra, see F. Colombijn, ‘The ecological sustainability of frontier societies in eastern Sumatra’, in Boomgaard, et al. (eds), Paper Landscapes, pp. 325–327. 157 Desch co-authored with A.V. Thomas, Timber Utilisation in Malaya, Malayan Forest Records, No. 13, Kuala Lumpur, Govt. Printer. 158 F.G. Browne, ‘The control of Malayan forest insects’, Malayan Forester, 2, iv (1933) pp. 172– 175. 159 Oliphant, ‘Development and use of mixed forest’, pp. 8–9. 160 In Perak and Selangor the demand for timber and its inaccessibility to the peasantry led to the utilization of woods previously used for fuel, such as kelat (Eugenia spp.), kedondong (Canarium spp.), pendarahan (Myristica spp.), durian and even tualang. RFA 1927, p. 18. 161 J.N. Oliphant, ‘Forest transport problems in Malaya’, Malayan Forester, I, i (1931) p. 12. 162 Oliphant, ‘Forest transport problems in Malaya’ p. 13. 163 Cant, Pahang, p. 133. 164 H.R. Blanford, Conservator of Forests, Burma, Note on a Brief Tour in Malaya, No. 1, CF 379/29. 165 Oliphant, ‘Transport problems’, p. 13. 166 Memo, Programme for Forest Roads, 18 Jan. 1929, No. 1, CF 89/29. 167 H.E. Desch, ‘The forests of the Malay Peninsula and their exploitation’, Malayan Forester, 7, iv (1938) pp. 178–179. 168 Personal communication, P.J. Burgess. 169 Revenue from felling rose spectacularly when the Forest Reserves were made accessible, initially by cart traffic and, later, by corduroy roads. RFA 1930, p. 7. 170 H.E. Desch ‘Annual Report of the Forest Administration, FMS 1930’, Empire Forestry Journal, 10 (1931) p. 321. 171 Diary, A.B. Walton, Conservator of Forests, Rawang, 1–15 July 1929, CF 149/29. 172 Annual Report, Forest Administration, 1935, No. 2, DF 53/35. 173 The problem was serious during the 1930s in Selangor, where silting in the Semenyih River, resulting from mining activities at Bukit Arang, undermined a scheme for logging in the neighbouring Bukit Lalang Forest Reserve. Acting Director, Forestry, to SFO, 26 June 1934. No. 3, DF 287/37; Acting Director of Forestry, 26 July 1934, to Warden of Mines, No. 9, DF 287/34; Acting Director of Forestry to Warden of Mines, 7 Aug. 1934, No. 11, DF 287/34. 174 Grant, Pahang, p. 142. 175 J.H. Oliphant, ‘Sungai Siput sawmill & extraction from Korbu Reserve’, No. 34, DF 507/33. 176 Chipp had earlier served in Punjab and Madras.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 122 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

122

177 Cubitt, ‘Forestry in Malaya’, p. 226. 178 R.C. Barnard, ‘Elements of Malayan silviculture, 1950: Lowland dipterocarp forest’, Malayan Forester, 13, iii (1959) p. 122. 179 Desch,‘The forests of the Malay Peninsula and their exploitation’, p. 178. 180 ‘Selangor’s depleted forests’, Malay Mail, 7 June 1934. 181 Malay Mail, 19 June 1933. 182 Annual Report, Forest Administration, 1932, DF 1/33; Paper No. 28, ‘Review of Affairs in the FMS’, 4 & 6 Nov. , PFC FMS 1936, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1937, p. C267. 183 Annual Report on Forest Administration in Malaya,1935, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1936, p. 3. 184 Malay Mail, 27 January 1936. 185 J.P. Mead, ‘Forestry in British Malaya’, Indian Forester, 60 (1934) pp. 27–28. 186 No 31: ‘Review of … the FMS’, 14 Nov., PFC FMS 1935, p. C294; J.P. Edwards, ‘Malayan timbers for export’. Paper submitted to the Fifth Empire Forestry Conference, London, Malayan Forester, 11, i (1947) pp. 33–34. 187 ‘Firm reply to cries for opening of jungle reserves’, Straits Times, 16 Aug. 1938. 188 Annual Report on Forest Administration in Malaya, 1934, pp. 20–21. Apart from cengal and merbau, other heavy-hardwoods utilized for railway sleepers were resak (Vatica spp. and Cotylelobium spp.), giam (Hopea nutans) and balau (Shorea spp.). 189 Forest Revenue in North Perak, No. 3, DF 455/30; SFO, Perak North, to Director of Forestry, 16 Dec. 1932, No. 19, DF 455/30. 190 Annual report of the Forest Administration, 1935, No. 2, DF 53/35; T.A. Strong, ‘The Sakai and shifting cultivation’, Malayan Forester, 1, (1932) p. 243. 191 Of the Reserves, the Parit, Tanjung Tualang, Cikus and Kurau Forest Reserves serviced the nearby Kinta mines. Brought under Commercial Regeneration Felling, they were considered probably the most valuable. Mead to SFO, Perak South, 21 March, No. 56, Ad. F 1175/26. 192 The 1931 International Tin Control Scheme introducing export quotas was renewed in 1934 and 1937. Tin exports, which dropped dramatically from $117 million in 1929 to $31 million in 1933, failed to recover significantly thereafter. Sundaram, A Question of Class, p. 172. 193 RFA 1932, p. 27. 194 Annual Report on Forest Administration in Malaya, including Brunei, 1937, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, p. 667. 195 ‘Regenerating the rain forest’, Malay Mail, 16 Aug. 1938. As seen below, consumption of fuel wood in the Perak mines during 1927–29 showed a sharp decline relative to the increased use of oil and coal. Figures are stated in tons. 1927 1928 1929 Firewood 637,128 351,363 335,659 Coal 73,789 102,958 156,028 Oil 44,247 50,955 56,925 Source: Annual Reports, Forest Administration, 1927–29. 196 Editorial, ‘Our forest assets’, Malay Mail, 17 August 1938. 197 ‘Annual Report of the Forest Administration in the Federated Malay States for 1926’, Empire Forestry Journal, 6 (1927) p. 103; Annual Report, Forest Administration, 1934, Kuala Lumpur, Govt. Press, 1935, p. 6. 198 J.N. Oliphant, ‘Artificial v. Natural Regeneration’, Malayan Forester, 1, v (1932) p. 190. 199 Wyatt-Smith, Manual of Malayan Silviculture, I, p. I–2/3. Mead to the High Commissioner, 9 Feb 1939, No. 1, Ad. F 112/39. 200 Mead was appointed in 1907 as Assistant Conservator of Forests, FMS. He served in Sudan in 1918 and, in 1919, became Conservator in the newly created Forest Department of Sarawak. Following a stint as Forest Adviser in Fiji, he returned to the Peninsula in 1926. He became Director of Forestry in 1930 and Forest Adviser for the FMS in 1935. Having retired in 1940, he again served for 3 months during 1945 under the Military Administration. Van Steenis-Kruseman Flora Malesiana, I, p. 353; FMS Conference Dispatch, 2 July 1929, CO 717/63/18. 201 Watson, ‘Some materials for a forest history of Malaya’, p. 71. 202 Desch, ‘The forests of the Malay Peninsula’, p. 175.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 123 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Appropriating the Forest, 1901–41 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211

212 213 214 215 216

217 218 219 220 221 222 223

•

123

Mead, Adviser, Forestry, to the British Adviser, Terengganu, 9 Feb. 1939, No. 1, Ad. F 112/39. Editorial, Malay Mail, 27 Jan. 1936. Ibid. Ibid. Annual Report on Forest Administration in Malaya, including Brunei, 1940, Kuala Lumpur, Govt. Press, 1941, p.12. Malay Mail, 18 July 1933. FMS Enactments 1925, p. 265. The others devolved were the Education, Medical, Mining, Public Works, Co-operative, Electricity and Veterinary Departments. Other services were classified as ‘Federal Departments’ (Railway, Surveys, Postal and the proposed Customs Union) and ‘State Departments’ (e.g. Museums and Town Planning). Informal Conference of the Acting Chief Secretary to the Govt., Residents and Federal Heads, 28 Sept. 1931, No. 21, DF 571/31. Ibid. A special report outlining the downside of the proposed decentralization on forest management was prepared by Mead for W.G.A. Ormsby-Gore, the Parliamentary UnderSecretary who visited Malaya in 1928. RFA 1928, p. 19. Mead, ‘The bearings of the new policy on forest legislation’, Acting Director of Forestry, 18 Sept. 1931, DF 571/31. Yeo Kim Wah The Politics of Decentralization, pp. 316–317. Report of Brigadier Gen. Sir Samuel Wilson on his visit to Malaya, 1932, Cmd. 4276 (London: HMS, 1933). Mead, ‘Proposed forest legislation in connection with the decentralization scheme’, n.d., No. 55, DF 683/31; Dy Director of Forestry, FMS & S.S., Definition of ‘SFO’, Revision of Forest Enactment in Connection with the decentralization scheme, 8 Nov. 1933, CF 683/31. The new changes were incorporated into the 1934 Forest Enactment. Forest Enactment 1934, Gazette Notification No. 996, 28 Feb. 1935, No. 5, vol. XXVII, p. 265. Mead, ‘Proposed forest legislation in connection with the Decentralization Scheme’, n.d. No. 55, DF 683/31. Straits Times, 23 Feb. 1932. Mead, ‘Proposed forest legislation in connection with the Decentralization Scheme’. Annual Report on Forest Administration in Malaya, 1936, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1937, p. 2. Also see Simandjuntak, Malayan Federalism, pp. 26–28. Watson, Official Memo, 5 October 1934, No. 76, 683/31. Annual Report on Forest Administration in Malaya, 1935, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1936, p. 2.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 124 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

TH PERLIS

✪

Alor Setar

AI

LA

Kangar

N

•

124

D Kota Baharu

✪

✪

KEDAH

✪

PENANG KELANTAN PROVINCE WELLESLEY

Kuala Terengganu

TERENGGANU

PERAK ✪

Kuala Lipis

Ipoh

✪

DINDINGS PAHANG

✪

Kuantan

Kuala Lumpur SELANGOR

✪

✪

NEGERI SEMBILAN

Seremban Straits Settlements

MELAKA ✪ Melaka

JOHOR

Federated Malay States

Johor Baharu ✪

Unfederated Malay States SINGAPORE

Map 2: British rule in the Malay Peninsula. Based on Turnbull (1980), p. 185.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 125 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

CHAPTER FOUR

Segmented Space and Livelihoods Where do we poor people stand? Where is the freedom for us human beings to get our livelihoods from mother earth? – A landless peasant woman from Pahang1

he Forest Department’s fundamental objective of sustainable wood and revenue extraction translated effectively into ‘territorialization’. 2 The British administration set out to enforce control over land use in the name of the Sultans, despite their limited territorial power in precolonial times. Colonial laws, aimed at appropriating forest spaces and goods, marginalized the interests of forest-dependent people. Though rights of ‘usufruct’ were converted to proprietary rights for settled agricultural land tenure, access to forests and their products remained a ‘privilege’.3 It was, moreover, categorically stated that privileges granted would not be increased with the growth of a family or community.4 Whereas under the indigenous system rulers exercised monopoly over selected items of export and imposed duties on others (see pp. 11–12), colonial forestry laid custodial claims to all marketable products, to which end access to the forest was restricted. Forest laws, designed to discourage free foraging, were entirely in tune with the government’s policy of encouraging settlement and sedentarization, tantamount to ethnic segmentation within prescribed and diminishing spaces. By challenging the fluidity of movement, forest laws put a break on indigenous enterprise. While Malays were contained within ‘privileged’ reserves for paddy cultivation, the Orang Asli were displaced by lowland development. Some eked out a livelihood servicing lowland settlements, but the majority were driven further inland, often into sub-optimal habitat. Forests for foraging and swiddening were dramatically reduced and the Orang Asli, like the fauna around them, became ‘transgressors’ within the very spaces they had once freely inhabited. The newly imposed laws and management practices met mixed responses ranging from open defiance to evasion and non-compliance. The Forest Department set out to address these symptoms of disaffection, which stemmed from a less than convincing policy of paternalism.

T

FOREST LAW AND THE RUR AL INVASION

Though Malay Reservations offered a semblance of rights to land and resources, colonial laws and administrative boundaries undermined forest produce collec-

KWells_book_1.fm Page 126 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

126

tion, contingent upon free and unfettered movement. Within the framework of the colonial forest laws, indigenous claims were, at best, interpreted as concessionary privileges. As the FMS Legal Adviser skilfully argued: [A] Malay taking timber or other forest produce for his own use from State land does so in the exercise of a privilege and not of a right… The law recognizes no right in State land derogatory to the ownership of the Ruler, and no compensation is payable in respect of the withdrawal of the privilege. [My emphasis].

Access, gazetted previously as a ‘right’ was, as of July 1929, declared null and void, except when specially granted by the Resident on the ruler’s behalf. 5 Free fuelwood and materials for building and repair were limited to fallen branches and off-cuts for domestic needs, and their collection restricted to the mukim in which an individual was ordinarily resident. In some instances even forests within Malay Reserves were opened to commercial exploitation, leaving the peasantry to make do with irregular and cracked timber discarded by Chinese licensees.6 The lack of access to good timber soon made its imprint on the Malay architectural landscape.7 The better class homesteads of richly carved cengal, with cool palm thatching, gave way to plainer meranti structures, roofed over with the more durable but unattractive heat-absorbent corrugated iron, purchased with cash-earnings from rubber. In contrast, in Kelantan and Terengganu, which until the 1930s remained outside colonial influence, traditional rural architecture endured for much longer. The hardship imposed by the revocation of free access to forest produce was hardly relieved by a 1925 ruling allowing the licensed collection from State Land of jungle products, other than Class I timber. The monthly rates payable were $10 for all other kinds of timber and mangrove wood; $5 for domestic fuel and anything up to $10 for all other kinds of jungle produce. 8 These rates far exceeded the means of the average peasant. To prevent commercial extraction under the pretext of collecting for domestic consumption, the revised rules of 1933 limited the amount taken to no more than the royalty value of $10. 9 Forest rules, while effectively undermining Malay participation in the forest trade, opened opportunities for the better-off Chinese to purchase licences whether for engaging indigenous foragers or organizing their own collecting expeditions. The new rules deprived the Malays of their earlier cash earnings from supplying mines and settlements with wood. The collection of fuel wood and timber, like nipa for roofing and nibung for floors and fish stakes, passed to Chinese licensees. Malay commercial participation was reduced to the barter of surreptitiously foraged bits of forest produce with upriver Chinese traders and shopkeepers, in exchange for essentials such as sugar, salt and dried fish. 10 Exclusion from the forest trade dislocated the peasant economy. Most turned to cultivating subsistence rice, with some cash earnings from rubber, which earned them a net average annual income of around $120 during the 1920s and 1930s.11

KWells_book_1.fm Page 127 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Segmented Space and Livelihoods

•

127

With just under 1.3 million ha in the FMS under Malay Reservation in 1931, Malay agricultural interests were considered adequately served to attract permanent settlement.12 Loss of free access to land and the plethora of forest laws conspired to remove Malays from the frontier economy based on shifting cultivation, the foraging of forest produce and land speculation. 13 Prevented by the Game Department from opening paddy lands in the Kerau valley (Kuala Lompat, Pahang), an old woman heading a party of frustrated land speculators gave vent to her anger: I am really amazed at the present government. Everything is reserved. Elephants are reserved, rhinoceroses are reserved, seladangs are reserved, deer are reserved, wild pigs are reserved and forests are reserved. Where do we poor people stand? Where is the freedom for us human beings to get our livelihoods from mother earth?14

Control over forest land, coupled with the Malay Reservation Enactment of 1913,15 was aimed at converting the Malays (dependent on a mix of subsistence activities) to paddy cultivators, for feeding the largely non-Malay populace engaged in business, industry and administration. Hence, at the same time as undermining the traditional rights of the peasantry, forestry saw itself as serving peasant agriculture and, in special cases, allowed paddy lands to be opened up in Forest Reserves. Where peasant and mining interests clashed, the Forest Department invariably supported the former, in recognition of a mutual interest in the preservation of water catchments. The bias of the Perak SFO, for example, was clear: The claims of the mining community must obviously be considered, but the needs of the Malay smallholders should not be forgotten. It would be of little comfort to the unfortunate kampong dweller, when he has to pay an exorbitant price for his timber, to know that the future of the mining industry is assured.16

Nonetheless, the long-term interests of forest protection and reservation took priority and the immediate needs of any single community were closely reviewed on an ad hoc basis. In the constitution of Forest Reserves the DO was obliged to invite the claims of local communities, based on proper proof of pre-existing right or privilege.17 In the creation in 1922 of Batu Kajang Forest Reserve in Raub, Pahang, the neighbouring Malay community was restricted to wood and dammar collection.18 In other areas, potential peasant resistance to exclusion from Forest Reserves was anticipated by the dedication of special areas as ‘kampung forests’, founded on the concept of ‘village forests’ introduced by the 1878 Indian Forest Act.19 For many, particularly in the fast-developing States of Perak and Selangor, loss of free access to forest produce represented real hardship and the fixed quotas allowed for domestic consumption were often inadequate. The outcome was widespread evasion of the law, which from the rural perspective was a justified response to unfair restrictions.20 Evasion was common. An

KWells_book_1.fm Page 128 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

128

increasing number accused as ‘poachers’ and ‘illegal settlers’, were ‘brought to justice’. Only poor surveillance due to staff shortage and the leniency of Forest Guards towards home communities provided a measure of relief within an otherwise harsh system. Even with defective policing during the 1920s, the FMS witnessed an average of a thousand prosecutions annually, largely for minor offences. In 1929 a tukang ayer (water carrier) at Fraser’s Hill was brought to court and imprisoned for defaulting on a $2 fine for ‘illicit’ felling for fuel. ‘A strong hand is needed with these people’, commented the DO at Raub.21 Fires by unauthorized cultivators in Forest Reserves, a common occurrence, were perceived as acts of defiance and incurred prohibitive fines of up to $100.22 The exigencies of survival were such that risks were taken against the chance of detection and imprisonment. Laws limiting access to the forest removed a vital buffer against hard times, resulting in a significant rise during the Great Depression in the number of offences in the economically hard-pressed environment of Selangor. Mostly of a petty nature, they were attributed to out-of-work men ‘stealing’ forest produce for subsistence. Some Chinese resorted to secretly felling trees, which were later collected as deadwood by ‘innocent old ladies’.23 Forest offences also increased in Perak where even petty cases ended in court as so many were too poor to pay the compounded fine.24 Whereas Malay Reservation offered partial relief to settled communities, the forest laws more seriously threatened the livelihood of upriver Pahang Malays engaged in shifting cultivation and trade in forest produce. The disaffected united under the Orang Kaya Semantan, Abdul Rahman, popularly known as Tok Bahaman. He was described as ‘the most expert woodsman in the peninsula’, bearing ‘a unique knowledge of jungle craft’. Disgruntled over the loss of his customary privilege of taxing gold and forest produce, he instigated defiance of the new laws, including the obligation to purchase licences for forest-produce extraction. In December 1891, C.E.M. Desborough, Collector of the Semantan district, accompanied by a Sikh and Malay police force, arrested three of Bahaman’s followers for unlicensed collection of jungle produce and, refusing bail, took them to court.25 The incident sparked a rebellion that spread rapidly over Hulu Pahang, drawing the chiefs of the Semantan, Jelai and Tembeling Rivers into the protracted Pahang War (1891–95).26 The rebels were brought to heel, but the political and religious ramifications of the incident 27 were etched in the popular mind as a symbol of colonial oppression and gained nationalistic overtones in the coming decades. Soon after the resistance was broken the colonial administration, disregarding Malay sensitivities, imposed its will in the form of the 1896 Pahang Forest Enactment.28 The new forest laws proved difficult to enforce among the upriver shifting cultivators of Pahang who capitalized on their isolation. Malay Reservation constituted only a fraction of the State29 and the poorly mapped and littlesupervised upriver territories served as frontiers of opportunity for swidden

KWells_book_1.fm Page 129 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Segmented Space and Livelihoods

•

129

cultivators who pushed up the Tembeling valley, clearing large swaths of mature forest along river banks.30 Typical were the proverbially intransigent people of Tekai in upper Tembeling. Offering access to the Terengganu interior, the area afforded a safe retreat and rallying point during times of social and political unrest. Taking account of the independence of the Tekai people, the Forest Department adopted a strategy of containment in dealing with them. When the Tekai Forest Reserve was gazetted in 1928, the local populace was allowed access to materials for construction and repair, which included timber, bamboo and the bark of one kepung tree (Shorea macroptera) every four years. Each household was also permitted a fixed annual quota of meticulously listed items for subsistence, namely, mengkuang leaves for weaving; bertam and palas (Licuala spp.) leaves for roofing; 100 rattans and 4 gallons of minyak keruing (oil from Dipterocarpus spp.).31 These items, though of no export value, were central to the Malay peasant economy. Restrictions on their collection beyond the needs of household consumption damaged networks of local exchange, contributing to economic hardship and the proverbial rural poverty of colonial Malaya. Compared to shifting cultivators whose survival depended on taking risks with the law, the settled peasantry was resigned to strategies of adaptation. Many simply reduced their dependence on forest produce by cultivating essential items such as sago, nipa, mengkuang and bamboo around their rural dwellings to make up, in part, for the restriction of access to forest resources. 32 By and large, as accessible State Land Forest diminished, the shortage of wood – where once there was infinite abundance – drove the peasantry to seek more permanent solutions. In the 1920s, wood scarcity within the Malay Reserves obliged the penghulu in Perak to initiate reservation of wood lots of 10–120 ha for supplying communal needs. What was prompted by sheer necessity was interpreted by foresters as symptomatic of ‘the awakening of a forest consciousness, which is deserving of encouragement’.33 Subsequently, other penghulu were encouraged to create kampung reserves as resource banks.34 The 1927 Amendment to the Malay Reservations Enactment allowed for the creation of Forest Reserves within Malay Reserves, providing a convenient means of absorbing village forests within official management.35 This meant that some areas, such as the Galah Malay Reserve in Negeri Sembilan, were deemed to be both Malay Reserves and Forest Reserves, with access subject to collaboration with the State Forest Department.36 FOREST R Y AND THE FOREST PE OPLE

The new economic inroads into the forest placed the forest dwelling Orang Asli, like the Malays, in an ambiguous relationship with the colonial government. Their jungle skills made them indispensable agents for colonial territorialization. Reputedly, Orang Asli were better guides and navigators and capable of carrying heavier loads on trek than the Malays. Logan, probably the first European

KWells_book_1.fm Page 130 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

130

to explore Naning, Negeri Sembilan, observed in 1847 the ease with which his Besisi guides picked their way through the mass of tangled vegetation, ‘perfectly at home, selecting with instant discrimination the best outlets’. He noted that Orang Asli botanical knowledge easily surpassed that of the Malays. Their perfect familiarity with every object around them was remarkable, even when compared with that of the Malays, for the latter did not distinguish plants with the same rapidity, and indeed did not seem to be acquainted with the characteristics of many … The Malay botanical vocabulary, ample as it is, was soon exhausted, and for many plants which the Besisi named at once they had no word.37

F.W. Douglas, while travelling with Clifford through terra incognita on the border between Pahang and Terengganu, used a half-aborigine guide, Komend Liar, who had helped Malays make their escape during the Pahang War.38 Again, for the expedition led by H.C. Robinson to Cameron Highlands in January 1906, the DO at Tapah engaged the entire population of men from the highlands of Batang Padang.39 Orang Asli knowledge of the forest, their usefulness as trackers, low wage expectations and adaptability to rough living qualified the employment of some as Forest Guards.40 Reliance on Orang Asli labour for exploration and survey influenced the evolution of the colonial aboriginal protection policy, based on an ambiguous form of paternalism. The gradual liberation from Malay slavery and bondage made it safer for Orang Asli to take advantage of new opportunities for forest felling, forest produce collection, agricultural work and labour in the tin mines. 41 In Upper Perak, the hunter-gatherer Semang exchanged forest produce and labour services with the Malays for rice, salt, tobacco, cloth and knives.42 Orang Asli assimilation into the new economy was at the expense of primordial rights to forestland and forest use. Under British rule, the valuable products that the Orang Asli had traditionally supplied the international market, as well as items of increasing local demand, such as bamboo, rattan and nipa, could no longer be extracted without the purchase of a licence and payment of royalty. Even honey and petai bean (from Parkia spp.), traditionally collected for the domestic market, were taxed 43 and ownership over trees restricted to plantings within orchards. Free access was granted only to those items of everyday use and little market value, such as jungle fruit, wild banana fibre, tuba roots and leaves for wrapping (from kubin or telinga gajah: Macaranga gigantea).44 Orang Asli loss of free access to tradable forest commodities represented the colonial state’s encroachment on their territorial orbits or saka. These claims, based on concepts of hereditary usufruct rather than proprietary rights, pertained to the freedom to hunt and forage within a large, communally defined forest area and tribal ownership of fruit trees.45 Claims of usufruct pertained to specific river valleys. 46 No group could settle outside its saka without encroaching upon the rights of another.47 The magico-religious beliefs associated with the topographical and geographical features of the saka enhanced its importance

KWells_book_1.fm Page 131 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Segmented Space and Livelihoods

•

131

to tribal identity. Ethnologists believed that ‘almost every square inch of the area’ on both sides of the Main Range, from the Kuala Kubu Baharu northwards to the Thai border, was carved out into saka.48 The colonial state’s interpretation of Malay sovereignty to include territorial control over all land, not excluding saka, held out an uncertain future for Orang Asli. Government intervention in Orang Asli affairs was disguised as benevolent paternalism. In Selangor and Perak, where they were brought more rapidly under the influence of development, programmes were designed by local DOs to assist their economic transition. In Selangor, where the pioneer anthropologist, W.W. Skeat, served as DO, durians (Durio spp.) collected by the Orang Asli were sold by government auction, ostensibly to prevent unfair exploitation. But the one-tenth tax abstracted from the proceeds betrayed motives that were not entirely altruistic.49 Vested government interest in forest management translated into policies for fostering Orang Asli settlement by enhancing their cash earnings from agricultural activity. As Orang Asli forest orchards (dusun) were important indicators of territorial claims, the Selangor government declared such dusun special reserves, providing additional land for rice, maize, coffee and areca palm cultivation.50 Similar ‘residential reserves’ for Perak Senoi were created through the initiative partly of Sultan Idris (r. 1887–1916) but in all cases titles were withheld for ancestral or other Orang Asli occupied lands. The question of Orang Asli rights to forest use went much deeper than the absence of legal provisions for special reserves.51 Despite Sultan Idris’s efforts to introduce a socio-economic system modelled on Malay institutions (see below), the Senoi remained fiercely independent. Like most Orang Asli, they were reluctant to exchange their free lifestyle, based on hunting and foraging within a wide territorial range, for settlement within prescribed locations. Some, however, like the Temuan in Selangor, took first to coffee cultivation and later to rubber, in imitation of the Malays with whom the British hoped the majority would gradually be integated.52 While this was a long-term target, the nature and extent of the government’s averred moral commitment to the Orang Asli remained unclear. Historically, jungle produce collection had guaranteed Orang Asli a place within the indigenous trade mechanism. Restriction on this activity was tantamount to their disfranchisement. Unable to purchase the requisite licences and pay royalties for marketable forest produce, they were obliged to hire out their labour and skills to Chinese middlemen. In Endau, Proto-Malays foraged gutta-percha, rattan, camphor and dammar for Chinese entrepreneurs who supplied the fast-growing Singapore market.53 Even as late as 1929, a fairly large Proto-Malay community near Sungai Kembar, on the Pahang side of the Endau River, bartered rattan for provisions with their Chinese commercial patrons over the border, in Johor.54 In south Perak, the large trade in petai, based on Orang Asli collections from around Tanjung Malim, Tapah and Batang Kali,

KWells_book_1.fm Page 132 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

THA

IL

AN

•

132

D

uni n h ab ited

Semang: foragers Senoi: swidden farmers Proto-Malays: horticulturalists

Map 3. Distribution of Orang Asli. Based on T. Rambo (1982), p. 256.

near Rawang, was the monopoly of Chinese licensees and retailers in the towns,55 able to offer better commercial terms than the Malays.56 This notwithstanding, by the 1930s some kongsi had acquired enough jungle skills to make jelutong tracks into the Pahang interior, cutting out Orang Asli collectors. 57 Contacts between the Orang Asli and Chinese traders, cultivators and timber workers proved mutually advantageous, though exploitation of the

KWells_book_1.fm Page 133 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Segmented Space and Livelihoods

•

133

aboriginal people was not unknown.58 Chinese shopkeepers at road heads and upriver jetties often got Orang Asli into debt. But abuse was limited by Orang Asli capacity to retaliate either with violence or by turning to alternative channels of commercial exchange. In the remote Hulu Beruk and Hulu Betis regions of Kelantan, the alleged abduction of Orang Asli women by tin-mining and jelutong-collecting kongsi strained relations.59 On the whole, the Orang Asli are reported to have interacted more closely with Chinese than Malays. The isolated Chinese cultivator is attested to have fitted ‘peacefully into the Temiar organization’, influencing it ‘for the good’.60 Chinese shopkeepers and jelutong collectors sometimes married into Orang Asli communities that often raised the children of such unions.61 FAILING ST R ATE G IES OF SUR V IV AL

The Temuan of Selangor and Negeri Sembilan The initial benefits of manumission brought by British rule soon gave way to the declining welfare of Orang Asli. Particularly on the west coast, expanding mining and agriculture forced their gradual retreat upstream. The Malayspeaking Temuan, of mixed Proto-Malay and Senoi origin (see Map 3), formed one of the larger Orang Asli groups and were present mainly in Selangor and Negeri Sembilan, with small numbers in Pahang and Melaka.62 Those in Selangor, numbering about a thousand at the end of the nineteenth century, inhabited the forest and scrub skirting pioneer settlements.63 Threatened with the loss of their traditional livelihoods, they took advantage of the brief period of unusual opportunity for hunting and cash earnings before withdrawing into the surrounding hills. The Temuan collected gutta-percha, eaglewood, resins and gums for the Chinese, in exchange for tobacco, glass beads, looking glasses, clothes, betel-nut and rice.64 In Hulu Langat, described as ‘new country’, they planted swiddens and marketed durians.65 By the early decades of the twentieth century the Besisi (Mah Meri) of Hulu Langat, were employed as timber fellers by Chinese. 66 In Hulu Selangor district, opportunities for raising cash from the sale of provisions in the form of jungle fowl, river fish and forest produce encouraged a more settled existence, with the cultivation of paddy, yam, cassava and banana. The same period of early settlement in Selangor boosted hunting opportunities for the Orang Asli because of the rapid extension of scrub. Sites of old gambier and pepper plantations, often left untended and thick with lalang, and old mining sites covered in bamboo provided abundant food for big mammals.67 The scrub and the partially opened terrain of the pioneer front, which drew elephants, deer and seladang, offered better hunting opportunities than the high forest. The Orang Asli in the vicinity of coastal settlements hunted extensively, using blowpipes and wooden spears for small game such as the mousedeer, wild pig, monitor lizard (Varanus spp.) and monkey, which they particularly relished.68 Despite their skills with the blowpipes, they took easily

KWells_book_1.fm Page 134 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

134

9. Forest Life i. Orang Asli family, Perak, c.1950 (RCS Collection) ii. Orang Asli with blowpipe, c.1950 (RCS Collection) iii. Parkia spp. (petai) among varieties of wild fruit (G. Smith)

KWells_book_1.fm Page 135 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Segmented Space and Livelihoods

•

135

to guns and reserved the few they communally owned for hunting larger mammals.69 Deer, largely the local muntjac or kijang (Muntiacus muntjak), provided a more regular diet than other large mammals. A song of the Orang Asli of Hulu Langat records the pleasure and profit of these hunting sprees. … [T]he Rhinoceros follows me. I then take a gun and shoot the Rhinoceros. The bullet has hit him. The Rhinoceros has fallen. See that ye singe then [sic] and quarter the Rhinoceros, And give to eat a little to every one; But sell the horn to the Chinese foreigners.70

It was not for long that the Selangor Orang Asli enjoyed the rich harvest of the grasslands. As shifting cultivation gave way steadily to coffee and rubber plantations, animal populations declined.71 In both Negeri Sembilan and Selangor, some Orang Asli communities responded to economic pressure by planting rubber, undeterred by the lack of titled land. In Negeri Sembilan, they planted small plots of rubber in the Palung Reserve for which, in 1925, they claimed a title when the trees were ready for tapping. The grant, finally issued only in 1939, reflected the ambiguity of official policy that did not categorically endorse the eviction of Orang Asli from reserves. Rather, as a matter of principle, Orang Asli who planted rubber without permits or grants were allowed to tap, if only in the interests of putting a brake on shifting cultivation.72 Nevertheless, the general lack of government encouragement for smallholder rubber and the absence of provision for Orang Asli land ownership precluded any significant shift to rubber planting.73

The Semang or Negritos of Perak In Perak, displaced by mining and agriculture, the mainly hunter-gatherer Semang were forced to seek external sources of income. The loss of hunting terrain to development induced some groups to adopt supplementary swidden agriculture. During the pioneer era, coastal Malays took advantage of the exemption of Orang Asli from the government ban on shifting cultivation by engaging them to cultivate dry rice. Semang activity has been summed up as ‘[oscillating] between a money or barter economy and a foraging economy, sometimes passing through agriculture on the way’.74 As opportunities for hunting and shifting cultivation became limited on the west coast, the Semang in Selama, Perak, gradually settled on the edge of Chinese and Malay communities as economic dependants, exchanging rattan, petai beans and other jungle produce for salt, rice and sometimes opium.75 Though paid routinely below the market rate, by the 1930s even those in the remote corners of the State, such as Hulu Temengor, had an improved knowledge of money. 76 In some areas they came out of the forest at appropriate times to help with the rice harvest.77 Their traditional mode of mixed activity, which included fishing, hunting, foraging, swidden cultivation and wage employment, reflected a high degree of economic adaptability. They responded readily to the upturn in the

KWells_book_1.fm Page 136 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

136

10. Life on the Sungai Tahan, c.1950 (RCS collection)

demand for gutta-percha for example and, after the bottom fell out of the market, shifted emphasis to rattan. Despite bearing the epithet of ‘slaves and parasites’, they filled the ecological interstices between settled communities, engaging in what Geoffrey Benjamin has termed ‘opportunistic foraging’. 78

The Senoi (Semai and Temiar) of Perak Unlike the Semang who filled the ecotone between forests and riverine kampung, the more independent Senoi, with a greater inclination to cultivation, lived on the margins of primary forests, with bordering secondary forest serving as a rich source of herbs, plants and animals.79 During the latter decades of the nineteenth century, their settlements ranged between 150 m and 600 m above sea level, the upper limit determined by the suitability for dry-rice, cassava and tobacco cultivation.80 By the early twentieth century, lowland development soon pushed the western Senoi further inland. While the Semai occupied saka lands in the Cameron Highlands, the Temiar lived in isolated mountain clearings, up to about 1,200 m along the Main Range, the upper limit of bamboo growth. 81 Despite the processes of accelerated interchange between coast and interior, the Semai resisted Malay administrative influence. In 1909, Sultan Idris appointed Semai headmen through the agency of local Malay chiefs. Armed with royal letters of appointment and empowered to hear disputes and impose fines, the headmen were expected to promote an administrative and legal system akin to that of the Malays. Beginning in the 1920s, the appointees collected annual tribute in the form of forest produce, hill rice, fruit and mushrooms, part of

KWells_book_1.fm Page 137 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Segmented Space and Livelihoods

•

137

which they surrendered to the Malay chiefs. The arrangement lasted for only about a decade and failed to incorporate the egalitarian Orang Asli within the extractive, hierarchal Malay political system.82 Among the inland Semai and the Temiar of Hulu Perak, pressure for land resulted in the gradual abandonment of ‘migratory shifting cultivation’, involving annual movement, in favour of a modified form of shifting cultivation or ‘static shifting cultivation’. Particularly those occupying the richer alluvial flats in the upper valleys83 settled for a number of years in one spot, planting swiddens on the surrounding hill slopes.84 The Temiar, in particular, have been described as ‘sophisticated and highly successful’ cultivators.85 In Hulu Pelus, the population of over 2,000 took readily to cultivating potatoes and onions, introduced in the early 1930s.86 Senoi who remained in the lowlands were obliged to adopt new strategies of survival. The loss of saka by the majority to mines and agriculture forced the adoption of shorter swidden cycles, with villages remaining in the same locality for as long as 15 years.87 The clearance of partly regenerated fields within shorter cycles provided insufficient fuel for a proper burn to eliminate weeds. This combined with pest invasion from neighbouring Malay and Chinese settlements increased agricultural risk and hardship.88 Among the earliest to be affected by development were the Temiar of Korbu, close to the Kinta mines, and the Telum valley, in the Pahang Main Range. Economic displacement resulted in reduced self-sufficiency and greater reliance on the market economy. During the early phase of the mining industry, when elephants were used for transporting tin ore, 89 the Temiar at Jalung and Kuala Korbu were engaged by Malays as gembala (mahout).90 With the introduction of rubber, the Temiar of Temengor, reputedly more adept than the Patani gembala of upper Perak, manned the successful elephant-control corps formed by F.J. Davy at Pelus to reduce damage to plantations.91 Skilled at tree felling, Senoi were adept at jungle clearance.92 During the 1870s, the Mandailing engaged Senoi labour for transporting rice and tin along trails connecting the coast with the interior mines. The rate for a 22–24 km journey was 30 cents per 30 kg, customarily paid in the form of cloth and tobacco.93 Senoi also contributed to the development of Cameron Highlands. They acted as carriers and guides and helped to clear land.94 Commenting on their contribution, an early highland tea planter recalled: Had it not been for the good work done by the ‘orang bukit’ [hill people] Blue Valley Estate would not have been opened up so quickly and cheaply. I had three hundred or more in gangs: an alternative to Chinese labour on the Highlands with its high prices.95

Temiar trade contacts with the external world, mediated by their chiefs (mikong or pangku), accelerated with the appearance of Chinese mining and trading communities in the upper valleys. The Temiar acquired cash, beads, salt and iron by working as carriers and timber fellers or by bartering jungle produce, fowls,

KWells_book_1.fm Page 138 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

138

11. Orang Asli settlement near Boh Tea Estate, Cameron Highlands, c. 1970 (G. Smith)

goats, handicrafts, rattan and attap. However, the new road through Pelus facilitated the opening of Chinese shops and booths, increasing the incidence of debt.96 By the 1930s, economic and social disruption brought some sections of the Orang Asli population under the influence of Protestant missionaries offering salvation. Senoi residents in the vicinity of Ipoh accepted the preaching of an evangelical Christian group. In the Keruh Forest Reserve in south Perak, economic resentment of the Chinese drove the Orang Asli to seek protection under B.W.F. Napitupulu, a Lutheran Batak missionary.97 Government was unhappy with his interference in Orang Asli affairs, and described his brand of Christian doctrine as ‘a queer mixture of evangelism and a perverted sort of Communism’. Tailored to the circumstances of an economically marginalized and oppressed group, the doctrine of equality in the eyes of God had a special appeal for the Orang Asli. It generated popular conviction that orders could not be given by one person to another and that unbelievers – implying exploitative Chinese and Malay entrepreneurs – could not prevail upon the community of Senoi converts. These beliefs provided a new source of empowerment. The infringement of a Chinese logging community on Senoi-occupied territory provoked an attack and the kongsi’s saws and implements were stolen. The

KWells_book_1.fm Page 139 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Segmented Space and Livelihoods

•

139

situation was saved only by negotiations initiated by the kongsi head with the Senoi penghulu, through the mediation of the District Forest Officer.98 Batak Christian missionary activity, considered a destabilizing force by the government, made inroads also into Senoi settlements in the east coast States, in the Temerluh district, Pahang, and Kuala Betis, Kelantan.99 By now, the extension of British influence into the UFMS, following the 1909 Anglo-Siamese Treaty, placed forestry once again in the forefront of European imperial advance in the Peninsula. Subsequent disruption of pre-existing patterns of forest-based political economies made way for centralized forest management that effectively underpinned the power of Pax Britannia. EXTENDING THE COLONIAL DOMAIN

The British thrust into the northern Malay States of Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan and Terengganu, under the cloak of an ‘advisory’ system, established a geographically and ecologically rational sphere of political influence, demarcated close to the Kangar-Patani floristic boundary.100 Forest management, in the vanguard, provided the means for extending the colonial resource frontier into States determined on maintaining a semblance of independence but keen on improving trade and revenue. Though tax on forest produce was integral to the pre-colonial fiscal structure of the UFMS, the improved efficiency of collection under the British and the substitution of cash for barter wrought a major revolution in the peasant economy. In Kelantan, inflexible colonial forest laws, which introduced licences and royalties on extraction, crippled a thriving domestic trade in forest produce. 101 This, and efforts to restrict shifting cultivation, generated widespread disaffection and culminated in the 1915 Kelantan uprising. Upon its failure, evasion of the law remained the only recourse and resulted in a cat-and-mouse game between the peasantry and the authorities.102 In Terengganu, where forest produce was also an important source of income in the traditional economy, the colonial tax regime was destined to have serious repercussions.103 Trade expansion with Singapore, under Sultan Zainal Abidin III (r.1881–1918), had placed renewed emphasis on jungle produce. It became the principal source of revenue extraction by the ruling classes, under royal grants.104 By the 1890s when Clifford visited Terengganu, a system was already in place for the monopoly purchase of jungle produce by district chiefs. 105 Tax farms, licensed predominantly to Chinese, collected duties at arbitrary rates on produce ranging from items of necessity and everyday use, such as timber and attap, to eaglewood and rattan for export.106 Recognizing the importance of Terengganu’s forest economy, the first British Agent, W.L. Conlay (1910–19), proposed consolidating the plethora of taxes in the State’s favour.107 The new laws introduced by the succeeding British Adviser, J.L. Humphreys, challenged the privileges of the elite and trapped the peasantry within the realm of colonial tax burdens. Permits were required even for collecting items of everyday use and for tree felling preparatory to the dry-rice

KWells_book_1.fm Page 140 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

140

cultivation widely practised in the State. The introduction, in 1921, of temporary occupation licences subject to a $100 fine for non-compliance and aimed at arresting shifting cultivation,108 precipitated a subsistence crisis for the people of Hulu Terengganu. Furthermore, the 10 per cent royalty imposed on forest produce was double the rate previously charged and covered a wider range of items. It effectively eroded the economic base of those dependent on collecting and marketing NTFP. The peasant community, as yet unaccustomed to the money economy, was hard hit by the demand for tax returns in cash. 109 Laws that set aside customary claims also alienated the ruling classes (kerabat di-raja). Their timber revenues were substantially reduced by the ban on cengal exports, aimed at arresting depletion, and an 80 per cent royalty payable on other commercially important heavy-hardwoods.110 The overall decrease in personal income from forest produce was not helped by the impact of the Great Flood of 1926 on agriculture.111 A female member of the Terengganu court recorded for posterity the widespread hardship from loss of traditional rights over land and forest resources. This Earth belongs to God, all of nature’s wealth, is gifted to man, now we have to obtain passes. Do not be afraid and terrified, go and take the wood, I will assist you, if the State arrests you. They come to do harm, is this not God’s property? Do not be afraid to take action, even though there is trouble.112

Disaffection came to a head in the 1928 Terengganu revolt, under religious inspiration and the shared conviction that the earth belonged to God and not the State.113 The voice of popular dissent was effectively crushed and, with it, the dynamism of the indigenous forest economy.114 Forest management, under a forester seconded from the FMS in 1932,115 made little pretence of downgrading indigenous interests. The poor prospects of a rice surplus in the State, coupled with the declining value of the NTFP trade meant that greater importance was attached to the State’s potential contribution to the Peninsula’s timber industry. The forest service made haste to take control of the well-entrenched and lucrative timber industry, originating in concessions made early in the century by the Terengganu elite to Chinese and European entrepreneurs.116 By 1937, the Kemaman-based Hin Leong Co., which worked the kapur forest at Hulu Cukai, was the major timber concern in the State. Hin Leong’s large sawmill at Kemaman also supplied the sawn medium-hardwood requirements of the State, but the big output of heavy-hardwoods from Hulu Terengganu was largely

KWells_book_1.fm Page 141 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Segmented Space and Livelihoods

•

141

hand-sawn by other operators. Both the Hin Leong Co. and the smaller Nippon Mining Co. at Bukit Besi were engaged in building tongkang (coastal vessels), using local timber.117 By 1939, Terengganu had a sufficient timber surplus for export to Singapore and to make up for shortfalls in Kelantan. 118 In 1933, following close on Terengganu’s heels, Kelantan received a Federal Forest Officer. The Forest Departments set up in both States in 1936 were on the FMS model but there was little optimism for exploiting Kelantan’s largely untouched forests. In 1900, the Sultan had made a generous 70,000 ha concession (constituting about a third of the State) to R.W. Duff, an FMS police officerturned-entrepreneur. Duff ’s right to extract mineral and forest products, barring the ruler’s monopoly on elephant tusk, gutta-percha and rattan, 119 damaged the small indigenous trade in gums and resins. Outside the concession area, the laws introduced by the Forest Department, replicating the 1934 FMS Forest Enactment, put a further damper on NTFP extraction.120 The tapping of all plant exudates, except the more profitable jelutong, was suspended ostensibly to arrest indiscriminate extraction and related damage to trees. The new laws, which reduced peasant participation in NTFP extraction, isolated the economy of the Kelantan rice plains from the interior. In 1928, about 72 per cent of Kelantan was calculated to be under forest. But swift flowing rapids and poor river navigability during the dry season rendered the timber-rich interior largely inaccessible to commercial exploitation. Costeffective commercial harvesting was restricted to the extraction of valuable hardwoods. The completion in 1931 of the east coast railway from Tumpat to Kuala Lipis provided improved access to Hulu Kelantan, enabling the sale of sleepers to the FMS Railways.121 To compensate for the fall in revenues from jelutong production,122 the State placed greater emphasis on timber over NTFP. Wood supplies for the expanding population of the agricultural plains of Kelantan remained a major problem, however.123 Government restriction on access to freshwater gelam forests, without provision of cheap wood for domestic consumption, resulted in a major fuel crisis. Wood from the more accessible areas worked by Chinese and Malay timber cutters fell short of local needs and the State continued to rely on imports, principally from Pahang, Thailand and the Netherlands Indies via Singapore.124 The 1936 fuel crisis in the coastal plain forced many to fell fruit trees.125 Wood shortage underscored the problem of transportation, which made modern forest management a farce. By 1939, just 1.4 per cent of the State’s area was under reservation and the merbau and cengal of the Lebir and Pergau valleys remained largely intact, which meant that the forest service had hardly made a beginning with harnessing Kelantan’s forests for colonial development.126 Contrastingly, in Kedah, the Peninsula’s rice bowl, the forests were better managed, under a forester seconded in 1921 from the FMS.127 Forest policy evolved, fine-tuned to the agricultural interests of the southern Muda and Merbuk districts, and four-fifths of the interior hill forests were brought under

KWells_book_1.fm Page 142 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

142

reservation.128 Attention was also turned to the threatened gelam forest, an important fuel source and vital for maintaining groundwater reserves for irrigation.129 To maintain self-sufficiency in wood and a stable hydrological regime for paddy cultivation within the drought-prone State, Forest Reservation was targeted at 32 per cent, well above the national average of 25 per cent. But due partly to the expansion of plantation rubber, by 1939 only 26.7 per cent of the land had come under reservation.130 On the whole, however, emphasis on forest protection to service agriculture in the west, restricting timber production to the northeast, provided an ideal formula for wise management.131 Like Kedah, the central valley in the adjacent mini-State of Perlis was dedicated to paddy. Rubber, introduced when the commodity price was low, proved unattractive,132 which meant that forestry was able to fully serve the needs of a model agricultural State, free of competition from big business. Though its distinctive biological diversity and floristic composition had yet to be fully appreciated,133 the 1929 forest policy for planned management earmarked large reservations relative to the State’s total land area. The management strategy adopted for each State, consonant with potential benefits to colonial interests, was again demonstrated in Johor, which also appointed British officers as of 1909, and an Adviser in 1914. The limited potential for Malay paddy cultivation and an already well-established cash crop economy dominated by the Chinese, resulted in a forest policy that was dedicated to placing the State’s remaining timber resources on a more sustainable footing. By the 1920s, attention was directed to expanding the timber industry in the south and around Endau-Rompin, based on the prevalent panglung mode of timber extraction.134 Customarily, the logs were floated down-river for conveyance by tongkang to Singapore sawmills, which returned inferior sawn timber from the Netherlands Indies for local consumption.135 Johor, therefore, established a local sawmilling industry to reduce dependence on Singapore. Forestry’s programme for developing a stable export market was damaged by overproduction, partly as a consequence of land cleared for agriculture. Furthermore, by the mid-1930s, diminishing sources of accessible timber and conversion by sawmills of previously unmerchantable species encouraged clear felling in Forest Reserves.136 As catchment protection for paddy cultivation was not an important priority in Johor, the State forest service felt free to step up timber exploitation, based on a policy of keeping extraction ahead of the rapid pace of agricultural clearance. As J.P. Edwards, Johor’s State Conservator put it: [It] seems better to reap the monetary benefit now rather than to conserve unnecessarily and run the risk of losing much of the mature hardwood now standing on State Land through alienation and consequent destruction … . It is therefore a question of getting the stuff out before the land is alienated.137

The reservation policy itself was salvaged, in part, by winning over Sultan Ibrahim (r.1895–1959), a game hunter par excellence, to the idea of designating

KWells_book_1.fm Page 143 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Segmented Space and Livelihoods

•

143

Forest Reserves as wildlife sanctuaries. Under royal patronage, reservation moved fast and by 1934 took up 15.5 per cent of the State. However, in Johor as in most Peninsular States, lack of coordination between the Forest and the Land and Mines Departments hampered balanced development. Following the Great Depression, renewed planting increased the area under rubber to over 400,000 ha. With further land alienated to pioneer cultivation of oil palm, forestry was left to walk a tightrope.138 Under the advisory system, the colonial forest service played a pre-eminent role in the extension of British rule, using the conventional mechanism of revenue and resource extraction. The difficulties of law enforcement outside forestry’s sphere of effective surveillance and management meant, however, that large areas remained under swidden. Generally, the lowlands up to the steepland boundary, at about 150 m, marked the outer limits of effective forest management. The sub-montane area that lay beyond, up to about 1,000 m, was largely the domain of semi-autonomous Malay and Orang Asli shifting cultivators and may be described according to Sivaramakrishnan’s definition as ‘zones of anomaly’.139 Particularly isolated were Hulu Terengganu, upper Tembeling, northeast Perak, southeast Kedah and the Nenggiri and Lebir areas of south Kelantan. These ‘vacant spaces’ where forest surveys, reservation and management had hardly made a dent, lay beyond the reach of viable timber exploitation. Representing the last bastion of indigenous claims to forests, they remained virtually untouched until improved technology for timber extraction attracted State intervention in the post-colonial era. The Forest Department's envisioned policy of structuring environmentally rationalized zones of land use accommodated indigenous interests only when these were consonant with British economic aims. For the rest, ‘privileges’ substituted customary claims on forest use under a seemingly paternalistic policy that excluded the Malays and Orang Asli from processes of negotiation. Contrastingly, as we shall see in the next chapter, the demands of the strident and influential tin and rubber industries could not be set aside so easily. NOTES 1 2 3

4

Mahmud Mat, Tinggal Kenangan, Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1997, p. 123. For forestry’s part in ‘territorialization’ elsewhere in Southeast Asia, see Bryant, The Political Ecology of Forestry in Burma, passim; P. Vandergeest and N. Peluso, ‘Territorialization and state power in Thailand’, Theory and Society, 24 (1995) pp. 385–426. The idea that the state had the ultimate ‘right’ of ownership, relegating the people’s claims to the ‘privilege’ of usufruct, originated in British India. The distinction, as Guha has argued, was based on perceptions of Oriental rulers as having far more power than their contemporaries in Medieval Europe. Guha,‘An early environmental debate’, p. 68. This interpretation, adopted by W.E. Maxwell, Commissioner of Lands, was the cornerstone for land and forest administration in the Peninsula. Maxwell, ‘The law and customs of the Malays with reference to the tenure of land’, pp. 77–80; P. Kratoska, ‘Ends that we cannot see: Malay Reservations in British Malaya’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 14 (1983), pp. 150–153. Though rights of usufruct were converted to proprietary rights for land tenure, access to forests and forest produce remained a ‘privilege’. Oliphant, ‘The constitution of reserved forests’, p. 241.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 144 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation 5 6

7

8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

32

•

144

Quoted in J.P. Mead ‘Memorandum on the Forest Department of Kedah’, 19 Dec. 1930, DF 1027/30. E.C. Foenander, n.d. No. 28, DF 218/33. The Malay Reservations Enactment of 1933, aimed at halting the ‘negotiability of [Malay Reservation] land as an article of commerce’, stipulated that such land could not be ‘sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of ’. Kratoska, ‘Ends that we cannot see’, pp. 160–163. Graham noted that cengal was preferred over other heavy woods such as merbau, tembesu and gelam because it was easier to work with but at $7 per cu m, was beyond the reach of most people in Kelantan. Graham, Kelantan, pp. 95–97. In 1929, restricted access to Forest Reservess was granted for collecting non-wood building materials in the form of bertam, resam, bamboo, nibung and the fern, piai (Acrostichum aureum), a cheap substitute for other forms of thatch. Cubitt, Circular No. 9 of 1929, CF 649/29. Forest Enactment 1918, Gazette Notification No. 54, 13 January 1922, No. 2, vol. XIV, FMS Enactments 1922, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1923, p. 220; Gazette Notification No. 8141, 24 Dec. 1925, vol. XVIII, FMS Enactments 1925, p. 267. SFO, Batu Gajah to Director of Forestry, 8 Aug. 1933; Director to SFO, Perak South, 29 Aug. 1933, DF 649/29. H. Clifford, Studies in Brown Humanity: Being Scrawls and Smudges in Sepia, White and Yellow, London: Grant Richards, 1896, p. 154. Kratoska,‘Ends that we cannot see’, p. 161. Compared with the area under Malay reservation, there were 639,771 ha under Forest Reserves and some 750,000 ha alienated to non-Malay plantation and mining enterprise. Appendices 8.1 and 8.2, Land Statistics, FMS 1931; Alienated Land in Malay Reservations, FMS 1931, Lim, Peasants and their Agricultural Economy, pp. 259–260. For an account of British efforts to bring the Malays within the tenurial system see Kratoska, ‘Peripatetic peasant and land tenure in British Malaya’, pp. 16–46. Mahmud Mat, Tinggal Kenangan, p. 123. See Lim, Peasants and their Agricultural Economy, pp. 106–116. C. Smith, SFO, Perak South, to the Forest Adviser, 8 July 1938, No. 76, CF 839/28. Conservator of Forests to Federal Secretary, 3 May 1907, CF 359/07; FMS Enactments 1925, pp. 274–275. RFA 1922, p. 3. SFO, Negeri Sembilan to Asst DFO, 1 April 1939, Ad. F 331/38; Modifications of privileges in Senaling-Inas Forest Reserve, SFO to Secretary to Resident, 29 July 1939, Ad. F, No. 331/ 38. Besides ‘reserved forests’ and ‘protection forests’, the 1878 Indian Forest Act provided for ‘village forests’ as a third class, but this was not adopted over most of the subcontinent. Guha,‘An early environmental debate’, pp. 78–79. FMS Annual Report on Forest Administration (hereafter Annual Report, FMS, Forest) 1931, p. 22. Diary of E.J.S. Strugnell, DFO, 15 Aug. 1929, DF 194/29. Annual Report, FMS, Forest, 1929, p. 23. Annual Report, FMS, Forest, 1932, pp. 22–23. Ibid., p. 24. Linehan, A History of Pahang, pp. 140–141. For an account of the Pahang Civil War see Linehan, A History of Pahang, pp. 139–168; Gopinath, Pahang, pp. 133–170. Roff, The Origins of Malay Nationalism, p. 71 For an account of the Enactment’s impact on traditional forest use see p. 69. See Cant, Pahang, p. 142, Figure 44. T. Hubback to J. Mead, 13 Oct. 1935, No. 6, Ad. F 394/35. The bark of the kepung (Shorea spp.) tree, stripped off in large sheets, was used for constructing walls and temporary shelters. Burkill, Dictionary of Economic Products, II, p. 2058. ‘Inquiry under section 7 of the Forest Enactment 1918, at Jung Belabuh’, 14 June 1928, No. 11, CF 594/26; FMS Government Gazette No. 4264, 20 July 1928, contained in No. 43, DF 594/26. Dunn, Rain-Forest Collectors, pp. 29, 95.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 145 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Segmented Space and Livelihoods 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

42 43 44

45 46 47 48 49

50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

•

145

These areas remained outside the purview of the Forest Enactment. RFA 1927, p. 2. Annual Report, FMS, Forest, 1931, p. 22. Circular No. 16/1929, 13 Sept. 1929, CF 860/9. SFO, Negeri Sembilan and Melaka, to Conservator of Forests, 4 Sept. 1929, in No. 1, SFO, NS and Melaka, 369/29; Circular No. 16/1929, Conservator of Forests, 13 Sept. 1929, CF 869/29. Logan, ‘Five Days in Naning, with a walk to the foot of Gunong Datu in Rembau’, pp. 408–409. F.W. Douglas, ‘Through an unknown corner of Pahang with H. Clifford in 1897’, JSBRAS, 85 (1922) p. 137. W.N. Sands, ‘Exploring the Cameron Highlands’, Pt I, British Malaya, 10, ix (1936) p. 222. Cubitt, ‘Employment of Sakais as Forest Guards’, 21 Dec. 1921, Circular No. 6/21, Ad. F, 328/37. J.W.W. Birch, as Resident in Perak, intervened on the side of Orang Asli to arrest their capture and enslavement by Malays. Following his murder, provoked by his attempt to eradicate slavery, the Perak government included Orang Asli within its programme of manumission, giving them legal protection against customary slave raiding by downriver Malays. Burns (ed.), The Journal of J.W.W. Birch, pp. 365, 403; D.F.A. Hervey, ‘The Endau and its Tributaries’, JSBRAS, 8 (1881) p. 121; R. Noone, Rape of the Dream People, London: Hutchinson, 1972, p. 55; Endicott, ‘The effects of slave raiding on the aborigines of the Malay Peninsula’, pp. 221–224; N. Dodge, ‘The Malay-Aborigine nexus under Malay rule’, BKI, 137, i (1981) p. 3. P. Schebesta, Among the Forest Dwarfs of Malaya (First published 1928, London), Reprinted (intro. G. Benjamin), Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1973, pp. 32–33. Forest Enactment 1934, p. 278. Macaranga gigantea: a small tree occurring in swampy ground, with conspicuously large leaves. Its light wood was also used for building walls of houses and for making whirring windmills for bird scaring in paddy fields. Burkill, Dictionary of Economic Products, II, p. 1405. Carey, Orang Asli, pp. 40–41, 86–87. H.W.C. Leech, ‘About Kinta’, Pt I, JSBRAS, 4 (1879) p. 29; Carey, Orang Asli, pp. 143, 178. Among the Semang Senoi such territory, with avowed kinship ties, was termed ‘tei’. Dentan et al., Malaysia and the ‘Original People’, p. 35. Noone, ‘Report’, p. 59; R. Cole, ‘Temiar Senoi agriculture: A note on aboriginal shifting cultivation in Ulu Kelantan, Malaya’, Pt I, Malayan Forester, 22 (1959) p. 193. ‘A note on the conflict of interest between the Forest Department and the Department of Aborigines…’, R.O.D. Noone, Acting Director of Museums and Adviser on Aborigines, 24 March 1956, DF 787/54. G.Browne, Acting Govt. Secretary, 3 May 1895, Circular 2176/189, Selangor Secretariat 4044/20; .J.J. Roe, Acting Asst DO, ‘Sakai tribes in Selangor’, Selangor Journal, V, No. 25, 20 Aug. 1896, p. 413–414. Originating probably from Orang Asli plantings, the durians of Hulu Langat have continued to command a high demand because of their superior flavour. Laidin Alang Musa, ‘The background of the Ulu Langat Valley’, Malayan Historical Journal, 2, ii (1955) p. 9. Browne, 3 May 1895, Circular 2176/189, Selangor Secretariat 4044/20. Copy of the FMS Govt. Gazette, 27 April 1917, in Secretary to Resident, Selangor, to Acting. Under-Secretary to Govt., 25 Sept. 1920; Acting Resident Selangor, 30 Aug. 1921, Selangor Secretariat, 4044/20. Roe, ‘Sakai tribes in Selangor’, p. 431. H.W. Lake and H.J. Kelsall, ‘A Journey to the Sembrong River: From Kuala Indau to Batu Pahat’, JSBRAS, 26 (1894) pp. 2, 8. Diary, D.N. Arnot, Asst Forest Conservator, Johor North, 30 March 1929, DF 469/29, No. 1. Dy Conservator of Forests, Selangor, to Conservator of Forests, 3 Aug. 1929, CF 440/22; SFO, Perak South, to Director of Forestry, 18 May 1933, CF 440/22. Jones, ‘The Orang Asli: An outline of their progress in modern Malaya’, JSEAH, 9 (1968), pp. 289–291. F.G. Browne, ‘Pahang river trips’, Malayan Forester, 1 (1932) pp. 234–235, 239. Jones, ‘The Orang Asli, p. 291. Noone, Report, p. 53.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 146 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

146

60 Ibid. 61 P.D.R. Williams-Hunt, Protector of Aborigines, Memo, 5 Aug. 1950, FS 123354/159; J. Leary, ‘The importance of the Orang Asli in the Malayan Emergency, 1948–1960’, Working Paper 56, Clayton: Centre for Southeast Asian Studies, Monash University, 1989, p. 3. 62 Dentan et al., Malaysia and the ‘Original People’, p. 47. 63 C. Letessier and Miss Apost, ‘The Sakais of Selangor’, Selangor Journal, I, No.7, 2 Dec. 1892, p. 99. The Temuan in Selangor comprised four principal groups: the Orang Kelang; the Orang Selangor of Hulu Selangor; the Orang Langat of Jugra and Kajang; and the Orang Beranang from south of Hulu Langat. Evans, The Negritos of Malaya, p. 10. In 1964 there was an estimated total of 4,560 Orang Asli in Selangor, comprising 3,290 Temuan Proto-Malays and 1,270 Mah Meri Senois who lived on the edge of the mangroves. Carey, Orang Asli, p. 11. 64 J.A.G. Campbell, ‘Sakais of Selangor’, Selangor Journal, II, No. 15, 5 April 1895, p. 243; Letessier and Apost, ‘The Sakais of Selangor’, p. 100. 65 F. Swettenham to Governor, A. Clarke, 8 April 1879, Report on Selangor, Parliamentary Papers, Accounts and Papers, 1875 (12) LIII, p. 110; Anon, ‘Sakai Tribes in Selangor: Kuala Langat District’, Selangor Journal, V, No. 24, 6 August 1897, pp. 392, 396–397. 66 I. H. Evans, ‘Notes on the Besisi of Tamboh, Kuala Langat, Selangor’, JFMSM, 5, i (1913) p. 4. 67 Anon., ‘Through “No Man’s Land” to Kuala Lumpur’, Selangor Journal, II, No. 10, 26 Jan. 1894, p. 152; W.W. Skeat, ‘Reminiscences of the Cambridge Expedition to the North-Eastern Malay States, 1899–1900’, JMBRAS, 26, iv (1953) p. 145. 68 Letessier and Apost, ‘The Sakais of Selangor’, p. 100; Campbell, ‘Sakais of Selangor’, 5 April 1894, p. 240; Anon., ‘A visit to a Sakai camp’, Selangor Journal, I, No. 5, 18 Nov. 1892, p. 68. The common langur or lotong (Presbytis) motif on the blowpipe may suggest that this mammal was the largest killed with the implement. W.W. Skeat, ‘Sakai tribes in Selangor: Kuala Langat District’, Selangor Journal, 5, No. 23, 23 July 1897, pp. 380–381. 69 Letessier and Apost, ‘The Sakais of Selangor’, p. 100. 70 W.W. Skeat and C.O. Blagden, Pagan Races of the Malay Peninsula, London: Macmillan, 1906, vol. II, pp. 147–148. 71 Rathborne, Camping and Tramping, p. 157. 72 Memo, ‘Sakai rubber in Palong Forest Reserve’, I.F. Stevenson, SFO, Negeri Sembilan, 28 Feb. 1939, Ad. F 194/ 39, No. 1. 73 Sundaram, A Question of Class, pp. 63–69; Memo, Smith, Perak South, 1 May 1939, Ad. F 259/39. 74 K. Endicott, ‘The impact of economic modernisation on the Orang Asli (aborigines) of northern Peninsular Malaysia’, in J. C. Jackson and M. Rudner (eds), Issues in Malaysian Development, Singapore: Heinemann Educational Books, 1979, p. 171. 75 In 1915 the Semang of Selama were described as occupying the area from Selama and the Kerian river in the north, Batu Kerau in the south and the Larut Range on the east. H.C. Robinson and C. B. Kloss, ‘Additional notes on the Semang Paya of Ijok, Selama, Perak’, JFMSM, 5, iv (1915) p. 187; I.H.N. Evans, ‘Notes on the aboriginal inhabitants of Ijok in the district of Selama, Perak’, JFMSM, 5, iv (1915) pp. 177, 184, 188. 76 Evans, The Negritos of Malaya, pp. 21, 34–35. 77 Schebesta, Among the Forest Dwarfs of Malaya, p. 42. 78 Benjamin, (intro.), Schebesta, Among the Forest Dwarfs of Malaya, p. viii. 79 Hill, Rice in Malaya, p. 167; A.T. Rambo, ‘Orang Asli adaptive strategies: Implications for Malaysian natural resource development planning’, in C. MacAndrews and Chia Lin Sien (eds), Too Rapid Rural Development: Perceptions and Perspectives from South-East Asia, Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1982, pp. 269–270. 80 Leech, ‘About Kinta’, p. 28. 81 Noone, ‘ Report’, pp. 44, 62. 82 Dentan, et al., Malaysia and the Original People, pp. 45–46. 83 The Temiar were concentrated in Hulu Pelus, Sungai Korbu and Sungai Betis in Kelantan. 84 Dentan, The Semai, p. 41; Noone, ‘Report’, p. 42. 85 Endicott, ‘The impact of economic modernisation’, p. 173. 86 Noone, ‘Report’, p. 41. 87 Ibid., pp. 179–180.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 147 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Segmented Space and Livelihoods

•

147

88 Dentan, The Semai, p. 45. 89 In 1894, for example, Malays hired no less then 54 elephants for the mines near Ipoh. J.M. Gullick, ‘The entrepreneur in late 19th century Malay society’, JMBRAS, 58, i (1985) p. 66. 90 Schebesta, Among the Forest Dwarfs of Malaya, pp. 37–38. 91 Noone, ‘Report’, p. 49. 92 Noone, Rape of the Dream People, p. 9; Carey, Orang Asli, pp. 175 n. 27, 179. 93 Leech, ‘About Slim and Bernam’, Pt II, p. 41. 94 Noone, ‘Report’, pp. 46–48, 53. 95 Mr. Irving, quoted in Noone, ‘Report’, p. 50 n. 1. 96 Noone, ‘Report’, pp. 46–48. 97 In 1932 Napitupilu replaced Alexander Simandjuntak as teacher at the Methodist Mission School for Senoi, set up the previous year at the 16th mile Tapah to Cameron Highlands Road. P.N. Means, And the Seed Grew, Kuala Lumpur: Council of Missions, Methodist Church of Malaya, 1981, pp. 8–9, 14, 24. 98 C.C.L. Durant. ‘About a conflict between a Batak missionary and a Chinese kongsi’, 21 May 1938, Ad. F 38/37. 99 ‘Propaganda Among the Aborigines’, 21 May 1938, Ad. F 328/37, No. 8. 100 Whitmore, Tropical Rain Forests of the Far East, p. 201. 101 These products included tamarind (asam gelugur from Garcinia atroviridis), petai, and buah perah (fruit from Elateriospermum tapos). A. Kaur and Shaharil T. Robert, ‘The extractivecolonial economy and the peasantry: Hulu Kelantan 1900–40’, Review of Indonesian and Malayan Affairs, 15, ii (1981) pp. 68–69. 102 For an account of the uprising see J. de V. Allen, ‘The Kelantan rising of 1915: Some thoughts on the concept of resistance in British Malayan history’, JSEAH, 9, v (1968) pp. 241–257; Shaharil Talib, ‘Voices from the Kelantan desa’, pp. 180–183. 103 Shaharil Talib, ‘The port and polity of Terengganu’, pp. 213–227; Shaharil Talib, After its Own Image: The Terengganu Experience, 1881–1941, Singapore: OUP, 1984, pp. 30, 63. 104 Shaharil Talib, After its Own Image, pp. 47–131. 105 Clifford, ‘A journey through the Malay States’, p. 20. 106 British Agent Terenaggnu, Annual Report, 1914, HCOF, 1021/1914. 107 Terengganu, Parliamentary Papers, xxiii (1917–18), Cd. 8812, p.8. 108 H. Sutherland, ‘The taming of the Trengganu elite’, in R.T. McVey (ed.), Southeast Asian Transitions: Approaches Through Social History, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978, pp. 73–74. 109 H.P. Bryson and W.F.N Churchill, ‘ The Trengganu “Rising”, in 1928’, British Association of Malaya, Item II, No. 4, RCS Collection, Cambridge University, n.d. 110 These were: balau, merbau and resak. ‘List of Export Duties of Forest Produce in the State of Trengganu’, 8 June 1929, DF 692/29 No. 4. 111 Shaharil Talib, After its Own Image, pp. 139–141. 112 Tengku Dalam Kalthum binte Tengku Wook Khazaki, ‘Syair Tawarikh Zainal Abidin III’, vol. II, vs. 551-vs. 553, transliterated by Yusoff Hashim, in Shaharil Talib, After its Own Image, pp. 168–169. 113 Sutherland, ‘The taming of the Trengganu elite’, p. 75. 114 For an account of the rebellion see Shaharil Talib, After its Own Image, pp. 134–175. 115 Trengganu 1936,Colonial Reports, London: HMSO, 1937, pp. 24–25. 116 The first reservations made in Terengganu were largely in the south where the valuable medium-hardwood kapur was located. Here grants were made in 1909 to Kemaman Ltd. by Tengku Besar Hapsah, daughter of Sultan Zainal Abidin III and, in 1911, to Chee Woon Poh for pre-development felling, by the heir apparent (Yang di-Pertuan Muda), Tengku Muhammad. In Kemaman, a third royal sibling, Tengku Sulaiman had entered a partnership with Loke Chow Loh, a local trader and miner. An area rich in cengal and other forest products, it had emerged as a thriving centre for exports to Singapore. By 1918, out of about 275,000 ha held in concessions by royalty, just over 2,000 ha had been developed for mining, leaving ample scope for introducing forest management. Transfer of the Concession of Land at the Mengkuang River in Kemaman, Terengganu, HCOF, 158/1911; Shaharil Talib, After its Own Image, pp. 88–91; Terengganu, Annual Report, Parliamentary Papers, xxxvi (1919) Cmd. 469, p. 419.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 148 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

148

117 Terengganu 1937, Colonial Reports, London: HMSO, 1938, pp. 27–30; Terengganu 1938, Colonial Reports, London: HMSO, 1939, pp. 29–30. 118 C.C. Brown, British Adviser, Terengganu, to Mead, Adviser, 29 March 1932, Forestry, No. 19, DF 494/30; Mead to Brown, 6 April, 1932, No. 20, DF 493/30; Mead to British Adviser, Terengganu, 9 Feb. 1939, No. 1, Ad. F 112/39. 119 ‘Document and correspondence in connection with the Duff Development Company’s concession from the Raja of Kedah’, communicated 10 Jan 1905, in L. R. Robert, ‘The Duff Syndicate in Kelantan’, JMBRAS, 45, i (1972) p. 106; J.E. Bishop, Kelantan, 1911, Parliamentary Papers, lx (1912–13), Cd. 6563, Appendix C, p. x. 120 Kelantan 1931, Colonial Reports, London: HMSO, 1932, p. 16; Report, 1833, SFO Kelantan, No. 44 A, DF 559/32; Kelantan 1933, Colonial Reports, London: HMSO, 1934, p. 51; Terengganu 1937, Colonial Reports, London: HMSO, 1938, pp. 27–30. 121 The hardwood for sleepers included: resak, tembusu (Fagraea spp.), kumus (Shorea spp.), keruing (Dipterocarpus spp.), seraya (Shorea curtisii) and kulim (Scorodocarpus borneensis). Kelantan, Annual Report, 1928, p. 8; Kelantan, Annual Report, 1934, p. 48. 122 Kelantan, Annual Report, 1931, p. 17. 123 At the beginning of the century, local production of sawn timber was limited to the Duff Development Corporation, which supplied its own rubber estates and mines, but the betterclass medium-hardwoods it brought to the market were insufficient. J.S. Mason, Kelantan, Annual Report, 1909, p. 929; Graham, Kelantan, pp. 96–97. 124 W. Langham-Carter, Kelantan, Parliamentary Papers, lx (1913), Cd. 7209, p. 450. 125 Annual Report, FMS, Forest, 1936, p. 74. 126 State of Kelantan and Perlis, Report for 1938, Kuala Lumpur, 1939, p. 34. 127 In 1910 an ad hoc Forest Department was formed. Placed initially under the Asst Commissioner of Police, it was dedicated largely to revenue collection and law enforcement. In 1915, management under a Superintendent of Forests was extended beyond the Muda and Merbuk districts and forest felling halted on Kedah Peak (Gunung Jerai ). Kedah, 1912, Parliamentary Papers, lx (1912–13), Cd. 6562, p. 196; Kedah and Perlis, Annual Report, 1915, p. 5. 128 The Conservator for Kedah, who also served Perlis, was assisted by a Sub-Asst Conservator and a 54- member staff including Rangers, Foresters, Forest Guards and Boatmen. Kedah and Perlis, 1934/35, Colonial Reports, London: HMSO, 1936, p. 27; Kedah and Perlis, 1935/ 36, Colonial Reports, London: HMSO, 1936, p. 33; Kedah and Perlis, 1936–37, Colonial Reports, London: HMSO, 1938, p. 39. 129 G. Wilkinson, Acting Conservator of Forests, Forestry in Kedah and Perlis, Empire Forestry Conference Report, 1933, No. 44A, DF 559/32; Kedah and Perlis, 1935–36, Colonial Reports, London: HMSO, 1936, p. 33. 130 D.H. Grist (compiler), Outline of Malayan Agriculture, Kuala Lumpur, 1933, p. 74; Kedah and Perlis, 1933/34, Colonial Reports, London: HMSO, 1935; Kedah and Perlis, 1938–39, Colonial Reports, London: HMSO, 1940, p. 26. 131 Kedah and Perlis, Annual Report, 1919, p. 540; Grist (compiler), Outline of Malayan Agriculture, p. 118. 132 Emerson, Malaysia, pp. 245–246. 133 Kedah’s forests constitute one of the Peninsula’s biologically ‘critical areas’. EPU-WWFM, ‘Malaysian National Conservation Strategy’, Kuala Lumpur, 1993, vol. III: ‘Critical Areas’, p. 108. 134 Johor, Annual Report, 1915, Parliamentary Papers, xx (1916), Cd. 8377, p. 332; Timber Extraction in Johor, Conservator of Forests, FMS and SS, 22 April 1929, CF 436/29. 135 Johor, Annual Report, 1931, Colonial Reports, London: HMSO, 1932, pp. 14–15. Kapur, balau and meranti were Johor’s main exports. Johor, Annual Report, 1934, pp. 19–20. 136 Watson, Notes on a visit to Johor, 2 July 1940, No. 63, Ad. F 640/31. 137 J.P. Edwards, Conservator of Forests, Johor, 11 July 1940, to Adviser, Forestry, No. 62, Ad. F 640/31. 138 Edwards to Mead, 5 July 1938, DF 680/31. 139 K. Sivaramakrishnan, Modern Forests: Statemaking and Environmental Change in Colonial Eastern India, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1999, pp. 30, 33 n. 4.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 149 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

CHAPTER FIVE

Reconciling Conflicting Claims Forests have to be reserved on a large scale as rapidly as possible … . It is therefore inevitable that within their boundaries there shall be included many pieces of land which can with greater advantage to the public be put to other than silvicultural uses. – G.E.S. Cubitt1

ased on their custodial responsibility over all forests, Conservators played a key role in influencing land use. In the absence of a legally constituted land use policy or provision for inter-departmental coordination, Cubitt and his successor, Mead, secured forestry’s preeminence by pursuing utilitarian objectives within the framework of environmental realities. Forestry was rationalized in terms of sustainable wood and revenue production, synergic with hydrological protection for nurturing Malay agriculture. Contrastingly, its relationship with the tin industry changed from one of inter-dependence to rivalry over land resource as mines turned to alternative sources of fuel and, with the introduction of dredges, demanded larger working areas. In this situation, a singularly vocal press represented emerging opinion on the impact of development on the environment, lending forestry support for broadening its role for public good.

B

THE IMPLICATIONS OF PLANTATION AGRICULTURE

The expansion of the capital-intensive rubber and tin industries challenged forestry’s twin tenets of timber reservation and hill protection. The area under plantation rubber, on land up to about 150 m, expanded from 11,300 ha in 1904 to 410,000 ha in 1920.2 It represented an equivalent loss of lowland forest where the dipterocarps were richest.3 Compared with smallholder peasant cultivation, plantation agriculture was less reconcilable with environmental stability. The small Malay rubber holdings of an average 1.5 ha, interspersed with patches of orchard, paddy and forest, offered a diversity of landscape and vegetation, absent in the unbroken stretches of monoculture.4 Plantations ranged from Chinese-owned medium-sized holdings to European estates of an average of 500–600 ha, with some exceeding 3,000 ha. 5 The scale and methods of clearance on estates contributed to erosion, as whole areas were fired and the

KWells_book_1.fm Page 150 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

150

stumps grubbed to eliminate any disease harboured in old roots. At the height of land conversion for rubber spanning the first two decades of the century, an estimated 70.5 million cu m of wood were burned.6 This, in combination with labour-intensive clean weeding, was conducive to soil erosion. Over the period 1905–39, rubber estates accounted for an estimated annual loss of 7.6 cm of topsoil and almost 33.5 million tonnes of sediment. In some instances, silting and flooding, as a consequence of land clearance and mining activity was sufficiently serious to cause downstream paddy cultivation to be abandoned. 7 Cubitt’s vigorous programme of reservation, aimed at arresting land degradation and securing wood preservation provoked criticism from the plantation sector that saw forestry as standing in its way. ‘Are we going to stop agriculture for the benefit of forestry or are we going to stop forestry for the benefit of agriculture?’ asked C. Ritchie, Unofficial Member of the Federal Council. The High Commissioner’s sharp retort drew attention to the government’s aim of bringing rubber production in line with the rubber restriction scheme: The government has been asked to keep a system of restriction with the idea of reducing output … . More land is now asked for in order to produce more rubber. That is something like the cat chasing its own tail.8

The government’s stand on rubber, based on two arguments, opened a window of opportunity for forest reservation. First, forestry pointed out the continued loss of State Land Forests to plantation rubber, covering over 800,000 ha by 1934, and the related increase in the reliance on Reserved Forests for wood (see Fig. 1, p. 109).9 A ban against new planting during the duration of the International Rubber Regulation Scheme (1934–38)10 put a temporary halt on deforestation. But problems resurfaced when the regulations were relaxed during 1939–40, permitting both replanting and a 5 per cent expansion. Some estates took advantage of the opportunity to replant, abandoning the old plantations, thus increasing the aggregate of degraded land left by mining and shifting cultivation.11 The second point pressed by forestry was the need to protect slope land and catchments for safeguarding water supply for expanding agriculture and settlement in the lowlands. As the forester C. Hummel had predicted in 1913, this particular forest utility increased as more of the country was opened up. 12 The policy of preserving upland forest cover, initiated by Hugh Low with regard to the Larut Hills (see p. 61), was reinforced by the Forest Department but was periodically challenged by illicit mining activity.13 In 1909, the Forest Department stoutly resisted a move by unofficial members of the Perak State Council to de-gazette the Larut Forest Reserve created in 1891, and in 1915 added a further 520 ha.14 Improved knowledge of the ‘sponge-effect’ of forest cover for conserving rainwater and regulating river flow informed forestry’s campaign against hill clearance. Pointing to the serious consequences of deforestation in the Philip-

KWells_book_1.fm Page 151 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Reconciling Conflicting Claims

•

151

pines and India, the Perak Deputy Conservator, Cuthbert Smith, drew attention to the vulnerability of the steep Larut Hills, exposed to a high average annual rainfall of 540 cm.15 Taiping, already prone to annual flooding, was represented to be particularly at risk if the hills were cleared. The move to protect hill forests was also inspired by the visual pleasure they afforded. As Smith noted: It is perhaps not to be expected that the aesthetic point of view should be given much consideration, but it is surely worth something to preserve the beauties of the hills as they now are and prevent slopes being laid bare by woodcutters and miners. The hills have always been the great attraction of Taiping, and the admiration of visitors.16

In 1926, 466 ha of forest in Payung in Kuala Kangsar district, and estimated to be of little agricultural value, were gazetted as a Reserve. The State Conservator claimed that its significance as ‘a conspicuous and pleasing feature’ supplemented its utility for providing wood for the surrounding populace. 17 The closure of hills to logging had its sceptics even among foresters. The revenue lost from banning logging in the Kinta Hills Reserve was criticized by D.S.P. Noakes, who proposed controlled logging as a means of promoting the development of the Kinta district. He pressed for the immediate exploitation of the hills forests in anticipation of their depreciation once forestry realized its ambitions of enhancing productivity in the lowlands through silvicultural management. ‘It is criminal folly,’ he argued, ‘to lock up this potential wealth which may finally never be realised.’18 In the event, the difficulty and expense of post-felling silvicultural work in hill forests discredited Noak’s proposal and saved Cubitt’s hill protection scheme, strongly endorsed by his successors, Mead and Watson. In principle, the ban on hill logging remained, except where land was alienated for mining.19 Enforcement of hill protection made appropriate land reservation a matter of urgency, particularly in Upper Perak where the extension of mining and agricultural settlement put catchments at risk. In 1927, in the interest primarily of pre-empting damage to the tributaries of the Perak River, an extensive tract of some 95,800 ha of hill country, north of Korbu, was declared Protection Forest.20 MINING AND THE SCRAMBLE FOR THE LOWLANDS

Efforts to establish the inviolacy of hill reserves conflicted most sharply with the interests of the mining industry. The widely dispersed nature of tin prospecting defied restriction. Foresters complained of the setback to management when forced to open reserves to mining as part of the World-War I war effort, for example. 21 In 1918, Selangor alone issued 27 permits for prospecting and 20 for mining in Forest Reserves, half of these in the Hulu Gombak Forest Reserve. 22 The 1921 economic downturn put a damper on mining activity. However, the post-1924 recovery and depletion of tin loads in the hills returned prospecting to the lowlands where the new technology of bucket dredge-mining assisted the re-working of old sites and the hitherto unexploited swampland. 23 These

KWells_book_1.fm Page 152 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

152

12. Tin-mining landscape (T.C. Whitmore)

developments and the increased use of oil and hydroelectricity, which reduced the tin industry’s dependence on wood,24 brought a major shift in the relations between forestry and mining. Reacting to the fast pace of reservation, the mining sector was resolute in its demand for access. The industry’s operations, which by the 1930s involved roughly 1,000 mines and over 100 dredges in the Peninsula (each requiring a minimum working area of 160 ha) potentially represented huge claims on forest land.25 Though conceding that mining activity did not match the scale of forest loss to rubber, the Forest Department argued that random prospecting would prejudice landscape protection and disrupt silvicultural and regeneration programmes. Forestry won the cooperation of the British Residents in this regard and, in 1929, the Residents’ Conference put a brake on prospecting, limiting it to existing mining areas.26 The policy was endorsed by the 1931 Tin Restriction Scheme. Once the restriction on prospecting was relaxed in 1937 in anticipation of an upturn in the market, forestry again faced the problem of how best to contain an aggressive tin industry. The Forest Department resolved to stand firmly by its principle of excluding all access to Reserves, except for the special needs of agriculture. Watson, as Acting Forest Adviser, proposed restricting tin prospecting to unreserved swamps and other areas that forestry considered ‘worthless’.27 The policy was defended on the basis that the long-term interests of forestry ought not to be compromised by the lack of security of tenure.28 Land under mining was temporarily productive and ultimately useless, argued Watson, whereas forests, properly managed, were a renewable resource.29 His views were supported by Mead who questioned

KWells_book_1.fm Page 153 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Reconciling Conflicting Claims

•

153

the wisdom of giving pre-eminence to the tin industry, as proposed by the President of the FMS Chamber of Mines, E.E.G. Boyd.30 Too much reliance on tin, he argued, would be detrimental to overall development in the Peninsula. 31 In the light of Sir Lewis Fermor’s mission to review the prospects of the tin industry in the Peninsula,32 Mead’s remark provoked the resentment of the mining sector and its administrative patrons. The Senior Warden of Mines accused the Forest Department of aggrandizing a disproportionately large area amounting to some 2 million ha, compared with roughly 72,000 ha alienated for mining. Obstruction to prospecting would damage Malaya’s prospects in the international tin market, he warned.33 Boyd launched a vigorous public campaign calling for Reserves in the mining heartland of Kinta to be opened in response to the flood of applications for prospecting.34 Of particular concern to the Forest Department was potential prospecting in the Cangkat Jong Reserve, which protected the Teluk Anson water supply.35 Despite forestry’s acknowledgement that the mining industry was still one of its best customers, the absence of planned development ruled out sensible collaboration between the two sectors and threatened an impasse.36 Seeking a satisfactory solution, the Perak Resident, G.E. Cator, formed a Regional Planning Committee to conduct a survey of the State’s resources with a view to arriving at a rational and structured policy of land alienation. 37 The Committee, under the Chairmanship of the DO, Kinta, included ex officio members, namely, the Senior Inspector of Mines, the Senior Drainage and Irrigation Engineer, the State Agricultural Officer and the SFO, Cuthbert Smith. Besides a representative from the Chamber of Commerce, the Unofficial Members included a representative of the Chamber of Mines and a Malay representative in the person of the Perak prince, Raja Kamaralzaman, invited at the behest of the Sultan.38 Symptomatic of rising national consciousness was the growing desire among members of the Malay elite for greater participation in the tin industry. The Sultan of Perak expressed the desirability of an alienation policy that would encourage Malay interest in the mining industry. His opposition to pressure for Malay Reserves to be opened up for mining was narrowly won at the Regional Planning Committee.39 The matter drew the generally reticent Malay elite to the side of the Forest Department in pressing for appropriate curbs on mining. Raja Kamaralzaman, who addressed the Federal Council on the issue, proposed that a sufficient portion of the tin resources be held in reserve until the Malays were ready to claim a fairer share of it.40 In the light of the partiality of the civil administration to the mining industry, the prince’s apprehension was well founded. Fermor, who attended the second meeting of the State Regional Planning Committee, supported the demand by the Senior Inspector of Mines and the Unofficial Members for prospecting licences to be issued forthwith.41 Smith, who found himself in the minority, was compelled to convince Mead at his Kuala Lumpur headquarters

KWells_book_1.fm Page 154 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

154

that, under the circumstances, cooperation was the best strategy. To save Perak from being swallowed up entirely by big business, he proposed a plan of appeasement, relinquishing for prospecting over 10,000 ha of freshwater swamp in Parit, Tanjung Tualang, Cikus and Keruh (Pengkalan Hulu) Reserves, the main source of wood for the Kinta Valley.42 He also proposed opening the remaining Reserves in the Kinta once the silvicultural treatment cycle was completed. Explaining his stand, Smith wrote: I hope you will not think I am advocating a defeatist policy … . If we persuade this Government to accept our proposals on the lines suggested above we shall anyhow have achieved something. 43

If forestry adopted a concessionary policy in Perak, it soon scored points on the broader front. Placed in an invidious position by the claim made by the 1939 Fermor Report that Malaya was ‘under an onus to permit the exploitation of that mineral’,44 foresters were forced to abandon their policy of staying clear of public issues. Press criticism of the Fermor Report of 1939 in the light of bourgeoning public interest in environmental protection fitted forestry’s script (see Chapters 6 and 7). The opportunity was seized for bringing into play the policy enunciated at the Empire Forestry’s South African Conference in 1935, for winning public cooperation through media propaganda.45 Nonetheless, to avoid the risk of infringing service rules by engaging directly in a highly charged public debate on the future of mining, forester J.G. Watson offered a professional appraisal of the Fermor Report in the FRI’s in-house journal, the Malayan Forester.46 The Straits Times published the article and cautioned against the rush of materialism at the risk of public good.47 The Malay Mail, too, endorsed forest protection. Reminding its readership of the heavy toll the mining industry had already taken on the Peninsular landscape, it called for due attention to the environment and the quality of life.48 [H]ave we not changed the course of rivers, deviated miles of roads, and even shifted whole townships in order that tin deposits in such areas might be worked?49

What guarantee is there, the editorial asked, that towns like Taiping may not one day disappear to give way to mining? This was a poignant reminder of the once pleasant and ‘prettiest’ mining settlement of Kuala Kubu, wiped out by a massive flood and superseded in 1919 by the less attractive new township of Kuala Kubu Baharu.50 In pressing home the need for forest conservation, the media articulated the middle-class aspirations of European colonial society for an improved quality of life. The Straits Times reiterated its plea for balancing material and social values. Mineral wealth can only be won at the cost of a scarred countryside. Malaya has already suffered grievously in that respect, but she is doomed to lose much more of her natural beauty unless she is overtaken by economic disaster in the form of a discovery rendering tin valueless. But, where health and food supplies are not affected, the materialistic view

KWells_book_1.fm Page 155 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Reconciling Conflicting Claims

•

155

should not be allowed to outweigh every other consideration. For instance, it is inconceivable that mining rights should be granted over … land given to the people for their recreation or instruction.51

Press support for environmental protection was one factor that bolstered forestry’s stand in the face of the policy crisis. The other was official commitment to promoting Malay rice cultivation, with which forestry related more readily than to the plantation and tin industries. Its stand could not have been more explicit. Ordinarily the claims of agriculture, by which is meant the cultivation of cereals, are stronger than the claims of forest preservation … . A forest forming the catchment area … or situated on a hill slope where the preservation of forest growth is essential to the protection of the plains below, would almost certainly have to be closed to cultivation in any form, but with this notable exception, a real demand for agricultural land, which can only be supplied from the reserved forests, should ordinarily be met without hesitation, more especially in the case of reserved forests.52

The importance of forest protection for sustained hydrological regimes dovetailed with the government’s programme for self-sufficiency in rice. The policy, launched in 1918 to reduce imports from Siam and Burma, was pushed harder in the 1920s to cope with declining imports following the fall in the price of tin and rubber.53 Preservation of Reserves and catchments to promote peasant agriculture validated forest conservation. Support for Malay agriculture was strengthened by the renewed attempt, under High Commissioner Sir Cecil Clementi, to boost rice output to feed the expanded labour force in the rubber and tin industries.54 Anxiety among the Malay elite to curb further loss of land to non-Malay interests by extending Malay reservation55 strengthened the Forest Department’s conviction that cooperation with the agricultural sector was good politics. It would allow reservation to go forward, with the option of releasing, as need arose, those areas not valuable either for timber or catchment protection. Sufficiently large tracts brought successfully under permanent cultivation would qualify for excision.56 The proposed agricultural settlement was calculated to avoid the problem frequently encountered when land alienated for paddy without prior assessment, was subsequently abandoned as unproductive.57 The scheme expressed a positive effort to court the goodwill of the agricultural community. Wherever State Land Forests proved insufficient, penghulu were urged to apply to the District Forest Office ‘without hesitation’ for access to forest produce, rights of way and land for mosque sites and graves. The peasantry were assured that the Forest Department would not impose unnecessary or irksome restrictions so long as the basic rules were complied with.58 Indeed, there was concern in some quarters that the Forest Department’s concessions to Malay agricultural interests may have been carried too far. A Malay Mail editorial offered a sober reminder:

KWells_book_1.fm Page 156 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

156

[C]onflicting demands were made for the release of reserved areas, contrary to the long-range policy of forest conservation, and although they may be granted in part we trust that such demands will never be allowed to interfere with a system that is saving Malaya from the fate of other countries which have failed to appreciate their forests.59

Upon the outbreak of World War II and the consequent downturn in investment and trade,60 the Perak Regional Planning Committee, hitherto dominated by tin interests, was obliged to concede to the exigencies of war and rice production. In 1940, it rejected an application to mine the Sungkai Game Reserve to protect downstream agricultural activity.61 In the same year, mining was permitted in the Bukit Merah water catchment, but subject to stringent safeguards to prevent pollution of Kerian’s water supply.62 Now in a position of strength, the Forest Department decided not to release further land for prospecting until the 18,000 ha of swamp forest, already released and constituting about a quarter of the mining lease in the FMS, had been fully prospected. 63 In the long term, the Forest Department’s astute reservation policy paid off. Loss of forests to industry was compensated by an overall increase in Forest Reserves and, by 1933, more than the 25 per cent target set for reservations in the FMS was achieved. Importantly, it was in Perak, where all-round development put forests most at risk that the highest percentage of reservation was secured, at an impressive 34.7 per cent (see Table 3, p. 111).64 In 1932, Forest Reserves in the FMS constituted 1.8 million ha or 25.7 per cent of land area. By comparison, in 1940, Forest Reserves in the whole of British Malaya, totalling 2.8 million ha and constituting only 20.4 per cent of the land area, fell short of forestry’s target, due to fewer incentives for reservation in the UFMS.65 INV A D I N G T H E HI L L S

In contrast to the largely utilitarian value attached to the lowland forests, the aesthetic, health and recreational potential of the uncontested uplands gained early appreciation among Europeans in the Asian tropics. In 1889, the first government sanatorium was established at Maxwell’s Hill (Bukit Larut), on a sharp ridge behind Taiping. The Superintendent, Leonard Wray, found the hill – shrouded for the most part of the day in cool tropical mist – suitable for cultivating European vegetables and flowers. Begonia and gloxinia, raised from stocks sent by Mr Bull of the Chelsea Physic Gardens, ‘gladdened the eyes of officers’ who went up to recuperate from tropical fevers.66 Other modest hill retreats were developed by the State governments for the benefit of civil servants at Gunung Keledang (Perak), Bukit Kutu or Treacher’s Hill (Selangor) and Gunung Angsi (Negeri Sembilan).67 Prosperity during the early decades of the century prompted the search for larger hill resorts. In 1912, a climbing expedition led by the High Commissioner, Sir Arthur Young, and the Chief Secretary, Sir Edward Brockman, reached Gunung Tahan. Its potential as a health resort was apparent but technical problems of

KWells_book_1.fm Page 157 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Reconciling Conflicting Claims

•

157

access to the area compounded financial constraints. The quest for a hill station was kept alive by ‘a desperate popular longing’ for a highland resort near the federal administrative and business capital at Kuala Lumpur. In 1917, Rev. C.J. FergusonDavie, the Bishop of Singapore, visited Fraser’s Hill68 with A.B. Champion, the Chaplain of Selangor, and suggested it as a suitable site. The proposal for developing approximately 140 ha was initiated as a Federal enterprise. Development of an ambitious infrastructure, including a 16 ha, 9-hole golf course in the main valley, 69 involved extensive hill cutting, contributing to serious erosion. As Sir George Maxwell, the Colonial Secretary, recalled: The result was as hideous a mess as can be imagined. Encircled by a great forest of trees and rimmed by tree-ferns was an expanse of yellow slime, over which trickles of water oozed sluggishly.70

The salutary lessons of erosion in Fraser’s Hill and the lost township of Kuala Kubu contributed to a more cautionary policy in the subsequent development of Cameron Highlands. In 1885, W. Cameron, an Australian surveyor, reached Lubuk Tamang (near Ringlet) and the site was earmarked for development by Hugh Low. He envisaged a European resort on the lines of Nuwara Eliya in Ceylon, for health, pleasure, horticulture and farming. The project, begun in 1888, was abandoned after successive attempts at building a road from Tapah to Pahang Pass. In 1923, the scheme was resurrected in response to the clamour from the Planters’ Association for a hill station to rival the official enclave at Fraser’s Hill. The hankering for cool climes and recreation was commensurate with the overall affluence of the European business community, which successfully rode out the economic ups and downs. Uppermost were concerns of health, particularly the effects of a prolonged tropical sojourn, associated with the syndromes of irritability, inertia and depression, described as ‘tropical neurasthenia’.71 It was felt that not only the productivity of the working man but also the health of women and children was at risk. As one member of the Federal Council argued: If you strip the ladies of their lip-stick and their face powder, what do you get? You see women entirely worn out. You see their health breaking up. The children are pale and anaemic and undoubtedly should not be in the country very often as long as they are. There is no place where they can conveniently go and get a change other than going Home, which is beyond the pockets, very often and most often, of their parents. From the point of view of business, a hill-station must obviously be good for men working in this country. A change to the hills of a fortnight is worth a month at [the seaside in] Port Dickson, for instance. 72

The Perak government was open to the idea of a highland facility in Cameron Highlands to service the Kinta core region, in compliance with the concept of planned development promoted by the Forest Department. In 1926, the Highland Development Committee was appointed, comprising the Conservator of Forests, the Secretary for Agriculture, the Perak State Engineer and the Health Officer, A.R. Wellington. It worked on the principle of developing the highlands

KWells_book_1.fm Page 158 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

158

primarily as a sanatorium centred at Tanah Rata, the site explored in 1908 by H.C. Robinson and C.B. Kloss.73 This did not preclude plans for agricultural development at a later stage, to which end an experimental station was set up for tea and coffee cultivation. It occupied a site, some 1,500 m above sea level, covering 81 ha on the lower slopes of Gunung Berembun. Attempts to adopt staggered development, commensurate with zonal planning, met the recrimination of European entrepreneurs who accused the Committee of ‘blocking all progress with regard to development’.74 Competition for the limited flat land raised

13. Hill development i. Fraser’s Hill development c.1930 (RCS Collection) ii. Tea plantation, Cameron Highlands, c.1950 (KITLV, Leiden)

KWells_book_1.fm Page 159 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Reconciling Conflicting Claims

•

159

complaints that government had picked the prime sites in Cameron Highlands and reserved large areas, allowing little land for public use.75 By the time the administration of the development of Cameron Highlands was handed over to the Pahang government in 1931, the settlement was connected to Tapah by a metalled road.76 Apart from the extension of European tea plantations and Chinese market gardening to service the growing lowland population, Cameron Highlands remained essentially a recreational and health resort. On the whole, there was no real pressure at this stage for highland development. Forestry’s real challenge lay in the fiercely contested lowlands where global market forces governed the expansion of plantations and the outreach of mines. As the Department could not compete in revenue terms with mining and plantation agriculture, a rational formula was found for integrating forest protection within the economic framework of the colonial state. By providing an effective means of managing unalienated land, forestry won over the authorities to Cubitt’s axiom: ‘Get blocks of land reserved, then we can sort it out later.’ 77 Reservation was convincingly rationalized in terms of the government’s Malay agricultural policy, which helped salvage some of the lowlands from industrial invasion. Thus, by the outbreak of World War II, the Forest Department had gained custodial control over most of the remaining west coast lowlands as well as the hill forests, important for maintaining hydrological regimes for peasant agriculture and urban water supply.78 These reserves, moreover, constituted a desirable feature of the environment, to meet growing public awareness of nature, health and recreation. NOTES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Cubitt to Chief Secretary, 20 June 1918, FMS 194/18. C. Barlow, The Natural Rubber Industry: Its Development, Technology, and Economy in Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1978, Table 2.2, p. 26. Wyatt-Smith, Manual of Malayan Silviculture, II, p. III-7/7. Ooi, ‘Rural development in tropical areas’, pp. 143–144. Ibid., p. 144; McNaughton, ‘Plantation rubber in Malaya’, p. 80. Foxworthy, Commercial Woods, p. 4; PFC FMS, 25 Oct. 1911, Kuala Lumpur Govt. Printing, 1912, pp. B40–B41. Aiken and Leigh, Vanishing Rain Forests, p. 83. PFC FMS, 15 Dec. 1926, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Printing, 1927, pp. B168–B179. Barlow, The Natural Rubber Industry, Table 3.2, pp. 444–445. Ibid., pp. 62–64. Adviser, Forestry to SFO, Perak, 21 March 1938, Ad. F. 1175/26; Land Code Enactment 24 of 1926. Hummel, The Value of the Forests of the Federated Malay States, p. 7. One example is the discovery of tin, some 10 km northwest of Taiping in the catchment of Sungai Ratin. Mining activity was halted in 1908, with no fewer than 37 prosecutions. J.S. Berger, Inspector of Mines, Larut, to Conservator of Forests, Taiping, 22 July 1909, DF 408/8. RFA 1923, pp. 1–2. This compares with the much lower rainfall of 421 cm recorded during the 1960s in Taiping. H. Gaussen, P. Legris and F. Blasco, Bioclimats du Sud-Est Asiatique, Pondicherry: Institut Français de Pondichéry, 1967, p. 20.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 160 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

160

16 ‘Larut Hills Reserved Forest’, Dy Conservator of Forests, Perak, to DO, Larut and Kinta, 21 Sept. 1909, DF, 480/08; SFO, Pahang, to Adviser on Forestry, 8 April 1935, DF 146/35; SFO, Pahang, 10 Aug. 1935, Ad. F, 198/35. 17 ‘Payung Reserve (Perak) Constitution Proceedings’, Acting Dy Conservator of Forests, Perak, to DO Kuala Kangsar, 16 Aug. 1926, DF 325/26. 18 D. Noakes, Asst Conservator of Forests, Kinta, to Dy Conservator of Forests, Perak South, 4 Oct. 1929, No.6, CF 1004/27. Noakes’s view was shared by his immediate superior, the Dy Conservator of Perak South, who favoured exploitation of the Tapah Hills in addition to the Kinta Hills. Dy Conservator of Forests, Perak South, to the Conservator of Forests, 21 Oct. 1929, No. 7, CF 1004/27. 19 Mead, Conservator of Forests, to Acting Conservator, 23 Oct. 1929, No. 8, CF 1004/27; J. G. Watson to Conservator of Forests, 24 Dec. 1929, No. 9, CF 1004/27. 20 RFA 1927, p. 1. 21 FMS Annual Report, 1918, Kuala Lumpur, 1919, p. 10. 22 E.R. Broderick, Resident, Selangor, FMS Annual Report 1918, p. 5. 23 Lim Chong-Yah, Economic Development of Modern Malaya, Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1967, pp. 51, 55–56. In 1910, suction dredges were introduced. However, it was the use of bucket dredges in the early 1920s that truly revolutionized the tin industry, extending mining operations to the untouched deposits under swamp forests. P. Kratoska (intro.), in Harrison (ed.) An Illustrated Guide, p. vi. 24 RFA 1929, p.5. 25 Yip Yat Hoon, Development of the Tin Mining Industry in Malaya, Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press, 1939, p. 134; E.E.G. Boyd, Confidential Memo on the working of the new policy regarding prospecting, 23 June 1937, No. 69, Ad. F 1175/26. 26 SFO, Pahang, to Director of Forestry, 10 Jan. 1930, SFO Phg. 545/29. 27 J.G. Watson, Acting Forest Adviser, to Senior Warden of Mines, 16 Oct. 1937, Ad. F 1175/26. 28 Report of the Forest Administration 1938, No. 3, Ad. F 108/38; Watson to SFO, 21 March 1938, No. 56A, Ad. F 1175/26. 29 J.G. Watson, ‘Relationship of mining and forestry’, Straits Times, 23 Oct. 1939. 30 Boyd was of the opinion that no tin bearing area should be alienated for other purposes and no money spent on forest regeneration prior to prospecting. E.E.G. Boyd, Confidential Memo on the working of the new policy regarding prospecting, 23 June 1937, No. 69, Ad. F 1175/26; Mead, Forestry and Mining, 16 March 1938, Ad. F 1175/26. 31 Mead to SFO, Perak, 31 Aug. 1938, CF 1175/26. 32 Sir Lewis Fermor, Director of the Geological Survey of India, visited Malaya in 1938 at the invitation of the High Commissioner. 33 Humphreys, Senior Warden of Mines, to Adviser, Forestry, 26 Oct. 1937, Ad. F 1175/26. 34 Boyd, Confidential Memo, 23 June 1937. 35 Watson to SFO, Perak, 5 May 1938. 36 Editorial, ‘Rationing the “ever-hungry dredges”’, Straits Times, 15 Nov. 1937. 37 J.E. Creer, Acting Secretary to Resident, to SFO, 9 March 1938, DF 1175/26. The specific terms of reference, however, related principally to the position of tin mining and read: ‘To examine the question of the delimitation of mining areas on the State of Perak, with a view to reconciling the divergent interests of mining, agriculture and forestry’. 38 Editorial, ‘Rationing the “ever- hungry dredges” ’, Straits Times, 15 Nov. 1937; ‘Committee to consider F.M.S. river cleaning’, Straits Times, 7 Feb.1938. 39 Memo for the Regional Planning Committee on tin mining, G.E. Cator, Resident, Perak, Dec. 1937, CF 1175/26. 40 Perak State Council, 20 Oct. 1937; Straits Times, 7 Nov. 1938; Editorial, ‘Rationing the “everhungry dredges” ’, Straits Times, 15 Nov. 1937; C. Smith to Mead, No. 116, para. 12, CF 1175/ 26; Minutes of the Seventh Meeting of the Regional Planning Committee, 10 Dec. 1940, CF 1175/26; PFC FMS, 5 Nov. 1937, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Printing, 1938, pp. B78–B79. 41 Minutes of the Second Meeting of the Perak Regional Planning Committee, Batu Gajah, 10 Aug. 1938, CF 1175/39. 42 Watson, Acting Forest Adviser, to SFO, Perak, 21 March 1938, No. 56, DF. 1175/26; Circular No. 5 of 1927, No. 23, DF 1175/26.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 161 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Reconciling Conflicting Claims

•

161

43 Smith, Dy Conservator of Forests, Perak, to Mead, Chief Conservator of Forests, 30 Oct. 1938, No. 60, DF 1175/26. 44 The italics are those of Sir Lewis. Sir Lewis Fermor, Report Upon the Mining Industry of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, 1939. 45 Ravi Rajan, ‘Science, nature and governing economy’, n.p. 46 J.G. Watson, ‘Forestry and tin mining’, Malayan Forester, 8 (1939) pp. 145–149. 47 ‘Relationship of mining and forestry’, Straits Times, 23 Oct. 1939. 48 Editorial, ‘Rationing the ever-hungry dredges’, Straits Times, 15 Nov. 1937. 49 Editorial, ‘Sir Lewis Fermor’s Report’, Malay Mail, 5 Sept. 1939. 50 Harrison (ed.), An Illustrated Guide, p. 92. 51 Editorial, Straits Times, ‘Rationing the ever-hungry dredges’, 15 Nov. 1937. 52 ‘Paddy planting within Forest Reserves’, 27 Feb. 1918, in G.E.S. Cubitt, Conservator of Forests to Federal Secretary, 20 June 1919, CF 194/18. 53 Lim, Peasants and their Agricultural Economy, pp. 104–105, 120–130. It is estimated that, between 1920 and 1940, the Malayan States imported some 65 per cent of their rice annually. Kratoska, ‘Ends that we cannot see’ p. 159. 54 In Melaka, for example, forests on catchments were protected for the express purpose of promoting paddy cultivation. SFO, Melaka, to Chief Secretary, Kuala Lumpur, 13 Jan. 1928, CO 273/171/1927. 55 Lim, Peasants and Their Agricultural Economy, pp. 211–112. 56 RFA 1922, p. 18; RFA 1923, p.1; ‘Extracts from the Forest Manual relative to rice cultivation’, DF 358/39; SFO, Pahang, to Adviser to Forestry, 8 April 1935, 10 Aug. 1935, Ad. F 198/35; By the 1930s excisions for agriculture ranged from the small 38-ha plot relinquished in 1934 in the Bintang Hijau Reserve, Gerik, to the 7,700 ha area earmarked in 1938 for rice cultivation in the Pasir Panjang Hulu Reserve, Perak. DO, Gerik, Upper Perak, to Secretary to Resident, Perak, 7 April 1934, No. 25, DF 313/29; Revocation of Part of Bintang Hijau Forest Reserve, No. 28A, DF 313/29; ‘Firm reply to cries for opening of jungle reserves’, Straits Times, 16 August 1938. 57 Kratoska, ‘The peripatetic peasant and land tenure in British Malaya’, p.31. 58 Extract from the Forest Manual 1938, Instructions to Land Officers, n.d., Ad. F 29/42. 59 Editorial, ‘Our forest assets’, Malay Mail, 17 Aug. 1938. 60 Sundaram, A Question of Class, p. 172. 61 Minutes of the Eighth Meeting of the Regional Planning Committee, Kinta District Office, 8 July 1941, CF 1175/26. 62 Sixth Meeting of the Regional Planning Committee, Kinta District Office, 27 June 1940, No. 119, CF 1175/26. 63 Sixth Meeting of the Regional Planning Committee, 27 June 1940, No. 119; Watson, Adviser for Forestry, 20 Nov. 1941, to the Chief Inspector of Mines, No. 156, CF 1175/26. 64 RFA 1923, p.12; RFA 1927, p. 4; Annual Report 1932, Ad. F 1/33, p.7. 65 Annual Report on Forest Administration in Malaya, including Brunei, for 1940, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1941, p. 1; Barlow, The Natural Rubber Industry, Table 3.2, pp. 444–445. 66 Barr, Taming of the Jungle, pp. 111–112. 67 S.R. Aiken, Imperial Belvederes: The Hill Stations of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1994, p. 33. 68 The place is named after L. J. Fraser, who serviced the tin mines in the hills, leased first in 1899 (to Abu Suradi), and last in 1913. After the metalled road reached the Gap, Fraser transported supplies and provisions in exchange for tin, first from Raub and, later, from Kuala Kubu. Sir George Maxwell, ‘The early days of Fraser’s Hill’, Malayan Forester, 17 (1954) pp. 73–74. 69 Aiken, Imperial Belvederes, pp. 44. 70 Maxwell, ‘The early days of Fraser’s Hill’, pp. 73–74. 71 J.G. Butcher, The British in Malaya, 1880–1941: The Social Life of a European Community in Colonial Southeast Asia, Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1979, pp. 157–159. 72 PFC FMS, 17 July 1929, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1930, p. B77. 73 J.B. Scrivenor, ‘Recollections of Cameron’s Highlands and Fraser’s Hill’, JMBRAS, 9, i (1931) pp. 1, 5.

KWells_book_1.fm Page 162 Friday, June 17, 2005 4:50 PM

Nature and Nation

•

162

74 Cameron Highlands Development, Enclosure 1, FMS Despatch 424, 22 July 1927, HC 7971/ 26, in CO 717, 57/3; Comment, H.T. Jones, PFC FMS, 30 July 1928, pp. B95–B96. 75 A.S. Bailey, PFC FMS, 17 June 1929, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Printing, 1930, pp. B70–B71. 76 Aiken, Imperial Belvederes, p. 47. 77 Edwards, 5 July 1938 to Mead, No. 42, DF 680/3. 78 Annual Report on Forest Administration, 1938, Kuala Lumpur: FMS. Govt. Press, p. 72.

KWells_book_2.fm Page 163 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

PART III

The Emergence of a Conservation Ethic, Pre-World War II

KWells_book_2.fm Page 164 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

KWells_book_2.fm Page 165 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

CHAPTER SIX

Nature, Ecology and Conservation Man has forgotten that the earth was given to him for usufruct alone, not for consumption, still less for profligate waste. – G.P. Marsh1

y the beginning of the twentieth century, global evidence of the environmental impacts of population growth, pioneer settlement and capitalist enterprise raised fears of the disruption of natural harmonies.2 Assumptions that nature – especially in the tropics – is infinitely abundant and robust gave way to the realities of its complexity and vulnerability. Efforts to understand its workings through the new science of ecology laid the foundations for the ethics of environmental stewarding. These processes of change in Euro-American perceptions influenced the Peninsula through the colonial scientific network. The conservation movement in the USA, a product of the environmental catastrophes that followed pioneer enterprise, was of particular relevance to frontier development in the Peninsula. Foresters recognized that an understanding of tropical ecology was fundamental to forest protection. Related research on indigenous land and forest use, particularly with reference to shifting cultivation, drew in the museums service. Its ethnographic studies, which extended to the socio-economic concerns of forest-dependent people, contributed to a re-evaluation of fundamental moral and social precepts governing aboriginal policy and forest management.

B

NA TURE AND IMPER IAL SCIENCE

A signal indicator of human intrusion into the moist tropical environment was the scourge of malaria. Its recurrent peaks of severity in the Peninsula in 1907, 1911, 1920, 1928 and 1938 were apparent particularly among non-immune immigrant labour in rubber estates where extensive jungle clearance created conditions favourable to the breeding of Anopheles maculatus.3 In an estate in Negeri Sembilan, the death rate among imported labourers rose from 85/1000 in 1909 to 195/1000 in 1911.4 Yet, colonial enterprise was driven by the philosophy that the risk of disease, like the impacts of tropical forest deforestation and erosion, formed part and parcel of the march towards economic progress. The Victorian outlook on nature was imprinted on the minds of pioneer explorers, entrepreneurs and administrators. The tyranny of the wild and struggle

KWells_book_2.fm Page 166 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

•

166

for existence witnessed by Darwin in the Galapagos Islands set a new model for the Age of Empire in which competition and conflict were seen as a necessary part of progress. The physical challenge faced in pursuit of this purpose 5 revealed the dual face of a benign-malevolent nature. For Hugh Clifford, the hot days, the cool nights, joy and brutality, were interwoven into a magnificence that was awe-inspiring. These forests are among the wonderful things of the Earth… [O]ver all, during the long hot hours of the day, hangs a silence as of the grave. Though these jungles teem with life, no living thing is to be seen, save the busy ants, a few brilliantly coloured butterflies and insects, and an occasional nest of bees high up in the tree-tops… As the hour of sunset approaches, the tree beetles and cicada joint their strident chorus, which tells of the dying day; the thrushes join in the song with rich trills and graceful notes; the jungle fowl crow to one another; the monkeys whoop and give tongue like a pack of foxhounds; the gaudy parrots scream and flash as they hunt for flies.6

Similarly, the forest evoked a mixture of fear and wonderment for George Maxwell. You are the centre of a small circle whose radius varies from fifteen to thirty yards. Inside this circle you can see more or less distinctly; outside it everything is hidden…Then you have the horrible feeling that from behind the tree-trunks watching eyes are looking upon you. It is bad enough at any time if you are alone and all is quiet; it is worse as the sun sinks and light fades….7

Or, as the railway surveyor, Carveth Wells, recalled: The sensation of being absolutely alone in apparent safety but knowing all the time that a dozen different kinds of death lurked on every side was in itself thrilling and exciting.8

Though civilization had begun to make its inroads upon the Malayan forest, nature’s infinite abundance and aseasonality evoked a sense of its invulnerability, endurance and sanctity. Neither the season, nor the flight of time, leaves a mark upon the forest; virgin in the days of which we cannot guess the morn, virgin in our days, virgin it will remain in the days of generations yet unborn.9

The exploration of tropical nature drew the European – whether entrepreneur, naturalist, collector, surveyor or administrator – into a common field of experience with local informants and guides. Empirical science and indigenous belief and tradition were readily co-opted for the wider purposes of progress. Malay and aboriginal guides, in whom the European explorer invested his trust and confidence, opened up a marvellous new world of fact and fiction, knowledge and folklore. Scaling the Bujang Melaka, in Kampar, Perak, the aboriginal guide pointed out to the District Officer, H.W.C Leech, the important ‘sky-line

KWells_book_2.fm Page 167 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature, Ecology and Conservation

•

167

range’, marking the watershed of the Peninsula.10 Frank Swettenham, the first European to navigate the Selim and Bernam (marking the modern boundary between Perak and Selangor), relied on Raja Ja Asul for topographic information.11 Consider the less accurate but endearing tale that Carveth Wells heard from his Malay assistant. Hussein told me that, when this deer [the pelanduk, Tragulus javanicus] is chased by a tiger or a leopard and finds himself hard pressed, he jumps into the air, hangs to the branch of a small tree by means of his little tusks, and pretends to be a fruit!12

In the distant urban enclaves carved out of the forest, colonial social mores underscored the divide between ruler and ruled and the boundaries of race, class and religion. Within the forest, however, these divisions were temporarily set aside. The forest proved a useful social leveller. Each member of a trek played a specific role in the commitment to exploration, bonded by the spirit of fair sport and common will to survive. The experience taught European administrators and entrepreneurs as much about the people as the forest. The exigencies of survival, the spirit of curiosity and the business of state impelled servants of the Empire to look beyond the poetic aspects of nature for vital clues to understanding the tropical environment. Enjoying the pleasures of the individual rivers he had come to love, Clifford marvelled at the perfect dendritic pattern they formed within ‘the most lavish water-system in the world’. Intersecting the forest-clad country, the rivers constituted the life force and provided the only practical means of communication.13 Scientific observation became an indivisible part, whether of pleasure or duty. We find ourselves thrown in daily contact with the surroundings of a new country as yet imperfectly known to science. Its mountains, rivers and forests are as yet comparatively unexplored; its mineral, agricultural and other economic products are as yet being only experimented with. Its timbers, rattans, guttas etc., are unclassified and undescribed … . Our birds and beasts and fishes are known but by imperfect collections. Only the most meagre sketches exist, mere scientific guesses, of the past geological history of the Peninsula. In all this there is room for the everyday experience of an educated man to make [himself] useful simply by the collection of facts and specimens, which may some day turn out to be of scientific value. 14

In 1876, Swettenham recognized in Pahang a field of exploration well worth ‘scientific research’.15 Addressing the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society a year after its foundation in 1877, A.M. Skinner, a colonial servant in the Peninsula, claimed that within ‘18 months of the Pangkor Treaty, … government had obtained more important information than had been collected during the ninety years prior to that event’. From having little information beyond that gathered from early coastal navigation, within a short time colonial servants systematically explored and charted the main rivers, in readiness for the imperial advance.16

KWells_book_2.fm Page 168 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

•

168

Local interest in natural science, shared through a number of established Straits journals and newspapers, contributed to the advancement of metropolitan knowledge of the Peninsula.17 Clifford’s pioneer exploration of Terengganu, the interior boundaries of which even the State’s ruler admitted to having little knowledge, attracted the interest of the Royal Geographic Society in London, which he addressed on 7 April 1896.18 The combination of geographical, economic and political information that Clifford meticulously amassed contributed to a masterly interpretation of the State’s political economy that had evolved within the contours of a specific environment. Daily routine, as much as romantic adventure, was time and again rewarded with the excitement of another discovery. These were chronicled for posterity whether in an endearing tale, the jottings of a journal or a compelling travelogue. It was the desire to share information, experience and knowledge, gleaned from day-to-day affairs, that inspired the publication of the Selangor Journal during 1892–97. The Journal contained narratives and diaries, laced with insights and commentaries on the indigenous people, nature and wildlife. Amateur interest in natural history, a welcome social and intellectual diversion from the monotony and constraints of official duty, was manifested in the foundation, in 1892, of the Selangor Scientific Society. We have formed ourselves into a Society not with any claim to the possession of a super- abundance of scientific knowledge, but to try to bring ourselves more abreast of the advancing science of the day, and to collect facts relative to the country in which we live, in the light of what scientific knowledge we possess.19

Though by the end of the year the ambitious plan gave way to a modest Debating Society, the spirit of scientific inquiry and the prevailing Victorian passion for collecting20 led to the formation of the Selangor Museum for the acquisition of natural history specimens. Unlike the Raffles Museum, founded under government auspices in 1849, and the Perak Museum, which owed its inception to Hugh Low, the Selangor Museum was started in 1887 through the initiative of leading local residents. Chief among the founders was Captain H.C. Syers, First Commissioner of Police and a keen hunter. In 1898, A.L Butler, later Superintendent of Game Preservation in Sudan, was appointed as Curator, with G. Samuels as taxidermist. 21 The collection grew through contributions from members of the European and Chinese communities. Housed briefly in the Government Offices, the Museum was moved to the former Istana (palace) in Weld’s Hill and then, in 1906, to its present site.22 Maintained avowedly for the education of the public and for the preservation of specimens of scientific interest, the Museum boasted ‘a most valuable collection’ where ‘almost every bird, beast and fish in the Malay Archipelago’ was represented. In 1892 it attracted an impressive 5,186 visitors. The Selangor Museum, to which the zoologist, Herbert C. Robinson, was appointed Curator in 1903, laid the foundation for the F.M.S. Museums of which he

KWells_book_2.fm Page 169 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature, Ecology and Conservation

•

169

became Director in 1908.23 Under Robinson the Museum in Kuala Lumpur earned as good a reputation for its natural history collection as the Perak Museum for its unique ethnographic collection built by its Curator, Leonard Wray (see p. 61). ECOLOG Y AND CONSER VATION

The Empire-wide collection of natural history and ethnological specimens anticipated the impending threat to heritage that development augured. Following just two decades of British intervention, the pioneer planter, Ambrose Rathborne, recorded with nostalgia the threat to the diversity of life. ‘Flourishing coffee gardens and macadamized roads have now taken the place of the primeval forest,’ he noted. The seladang, among a variety of animals, including the rhinoceros, elephant, hornbill, argus pheasant and tiger, was driven from its haunts. 24 Anticipating the destruction of one of his most favoured spots, a rapid on the Lipis River, Clifford recorded with melancholy: Before long, no doubt, some energetic White Man will utilise the power of Jeram Besu for the generation of electricity, and the place will be rendered unsightly by rusty iron piping, and cunningly constructed machinery. Then, incidentally, Khatib Jafar [who lives in the little village above the rapid] and his brethren will loose their means of livelihood, as, by the way, they are already doing as one of the first effects of the new road. I fear they will not be greatly comforted by the recollection that their individual loss is for the good of the greater number, or by the thought that they may in future earn their rice and fish in a manner that carries with it less risk than did their former occupation.25

Misgivings, however, about the imperial advance deflected neither the civil servant nor the pioneer forester from his commitment to harnessing natural resources for development. Arthur Tansley, Sherardian Professor of Botany at Oxford, alluded in his inaugural lecture in 1927 to the importance of practical training in plant science for ‘helping to conserve and to develop the resources of the Empire’.26 Within the framework of the colonial economy the forest was perceived as composed of ‘useful and useless species’, the latter termed ‘objectionable’ in silvicultural parlance.27 The role of the forester was one of ‘helping the useful species and fighting their enemies’.28 The Empire Forestry Conference provided a powerful forum for exchanging ideas and arriving at a consensus on policy for influencing Whitehall. 29 Furthermore, the inauguration of the Imperial Forestry Service facilitated movement of personnel within Britain’ s tropical colonies in Africa, Asia and the West Indies, contributing to the cross-fertilization of knowledge and the pooling of experience. But the benefits of science were no one’s monopoly and scientific expertise, like everything else, entered the marketplace. Forestry as a whole was internationalized. The Cornell-trained forest botanist, F.W. Foxworthy, 30 who brought to the Peninsula the lessons of timber depletion in the Philippines, was one example.

KWells_book_2.fm Page 170 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

•

170

Empire forestry’s commitment to meeting Britain’s wood crisis exposed by World War I, drew attention to tropical forests. As Research Officers at FRI, Foxworthy (1918–32) and his successor, C.F. Symington (1927–42), focused mainly on timber trees, especially Dipterocarpaceae.31 In the search for marketable species Foxworthy was struck by the diversity of Peninsular flora. He noted that the number of woody plant species, estimated at about 2,500, might well have exceeded the total recorded ‘from all of [British] India and Burma’. By 1940, the herbarium collection at the FRI contained roughly 40,000 sheets, representing about four-fifths of the woody flora of the Peninsula, ‘the largest and most complex in the world’.32 Forestry’s commitment to enhancing economic species raised, for the first time, concerns of a new order. In 1921, H. C. Robinson pointed out the biological implications of timber exploitation on forest ecology. He feared the character of the ‘primeval forest’ would be altered, profoundly affecting fauna. Though much primary forest still remained, he advocated ensuring the longterm security of habitat types by creating nature reserves. Robinson envisaged that such sanctuaries, shielded from external interference, would afford fuller protection than game reserves designated under ‘The Wild Animals and Bird Protection Act 1921’. He therefore proposed the preservation of ten representative habitats.33 Robinson’s proposal, circulated for comment within the forest service, was generally opposed on the grounds that it would lock up areas of economic wealth.34 The Deputy Conservator of Forests, Kuala Lipis, considered it sufficient to set aside some of the existing forest reserves better stocked with game. 35 He evidently failed to appreciate Robinson’s concern over preservation of habitat types, rather than artificially regenerated timber stands. But criticism of the impracticality of Robinson’s scheme had some validity. The efficacy of such reserves was contingent upon scientific monitoring through systematic data collection that excluded human interference, which was hard to guarantee.36 On the whole, foresters did not believe the situation to be sufficiently serious to warrant the creation of nature reserves.37 Evidently, no lessons had been learned from the Dutch experience in the Netherlands Indies, where provision was made for nature reserves only in 1916, after the lowland forests were all but gone.38 Early concerns in the Peninsula over deforestation were shelved in the rush for development. But under the influence of advancing science and increasing evidence of the effects of global deforestation, the impacts of the phenomenal pace of clearance, especially for plantation rubber, could hardly be ignored. Of particular relevance to the Peninsula was the North American experience where settlement and enterprise had flouted ethical practices of land use. 39 Even as Marsh’s Man and Nature ran to successive editions (see p. 42), the central Plains of the USA witnessed dust storms of increased magnitude, in 1886, 1894, 1913 and 1934. Within the same time span, the country experienced the disastrous Ohio River floods (in Spring 1913) due, in large part, to ploughing the High

KWells_book_2.fm Page 171 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature, Ecology and Conservation

•

171

Plains.40 The bad agricultural practices of almost half-a-century combined with recurrent drought, culminated in the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s in the Midwest and the Canadian prairies.41 These events exposed the vulnerability of man at a time when the collective ego of European advance was at its zenith and induced reflections on the ethics of land management from a universal rather than a colonial standpoint. ‘Conservation’ – a term used in its modern sense in a later edition of Man and Nature – entered the vocabulary of American society, linking natural resources with social welfare.42 It became, with the ideology of Progressive Reform, a topic of public and political debate.43 Policies relating to the fundamental resources of water and forest were sensibly linked to ‘wise use’. President Theodore Roosevelt, who initiated the multi-purpose river development programme, lent his support to Gifford Pinchot, Chief of the Forestry Bureau, whose moral crusade for efficiency and productivity was premised on the interrelation between agriculture and forestry.44 Pinchot, who had studied at Nancy and in Germany and had come under the influence of Schlich and Brandis of the Indian Forest Service, adopted the axiom that forestry ‘did not concern planting roadside trees, parks or gardens, but involved scientific, sustained-yield timber management’.45 At the same time, he was keen to emphasize that not water and forest alone, but all the natural resources ‘actually constituted one united problem’ and should be treated as interrelated.46 The notion of human society functioning as an organism with interdependent components was first articulated in The Principles of Biology (1898–99), written by the English philosopher Herbert Spencer.47 Tansley took the concept forward and coined the term ‘eco-system’. He was inspired by the ideas of his Danish counterpart, Eugene Warming, on the communal life of organisms, and the German scientist, Andreas Schimper, on the relationship of plants to soil and climate, based on his tropical experience.48 These helped shape Tansley’s pioneer study of plant species in terms of geographical communities. By viewing such communities as ‘species and individuals … and their relations to one another and to their common environment’, he laid the foundations for ecology.49 The convergence of Anglo-American and Continental thought, which led to the development of ecology as a science, came to maturity with the ‘successional-climax’ theory (1916) of Frederic Clements of the University of Nebraska.50 It emphasized the dynamic of vegetational succession observed earlier by the naturalist Henry Thoreau in the forests of Concord, and in 1929 Tansley formulated the complementary concept of ‘anthropogenic climax’.51 In Tansley’s case, knowledge of the tropics from a visit to Ceylon and the Malay Peninsula (1900–01)52 no doubt played an important part in shaping his ideas on ecology. The interrelation between vegetation, climate and soil, integral to Tansley’s ecological studies, was fundamental to Paul Richards’s seminal interpretation of vegetation zoning and secondary succession in tropical rain forest. It was based on his studies in the 1930s, spanning three continents, in the Dulit area of central

KWells_book_2.fm Page 172 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

•

172

Sarawak, British Guiana and southern Nigeria.53 These developments drew Malayan forestry, hitherto limited largely to economic botany, into the wider arena of natural science under the growing influence of ecology. Empire forestry as a whole was incorporated within the expanding global information network, based on a free flow of ideas, practical knowledge and heuristic methods. ECOLOG Y AND ECONOMY

In the Peninsula, as in the early North American colonies, indiscriminate clearance for quick profit was supported by the conviction that land was limitless and that the wilderness, a source of danger, was holding up the march of civilization. When soil erosion and widespread river siltation exacerbated the effects of high rainfall,54 administrators turned for solutions to the American experience. The 1926 deluge and 1927 Mississippi Flood drew the attention of the Chief Secretary, George Maxwell, to the problem of river siltation. Following the model set by the New Deal movement in the USA that underscored federal authority for effective environmental management,55 he represented river control as one of the essential services that merited federal coordination and discredited decentralization advocated by Guillemard (see p. 103). Maxwell’s call for greater cooperation between the technical departments of Mining, Agriculture and Public Works further echoed the ideology of efficiency pursued in the USA.56 River siltation, noted as acute in the Peninsula in 1904, was critical by 1914.57 Before the expansion of plantation rubber, the root cause was mining activity. One contributor to the Selangor Journal of 1893 blamed the Chinese miner for altering the course of rivers. The average Chinese miner has very elastic ideas as to what are his special privileges with regard to the use of this savoury stream. The exigencies of his vocation are such that he frequently alters its natural course, sometimes turning it in a most fantastic manner and causing it to flow now over, now under itself, or impounding it in flimsily constructed reservoirs above the level of the surrounding country. 58

Whereas growing awareness of soil erosion precipitated the formation of the Bureau of Soils in the USA in 1901, not until 1929 was the Imperial Bureau of Soil Science formed in the UK.59 By this time Malaya had initiated the 1922 Silt (Control) Enactment.60 As logging operations often aggravated silting, a 1920 enactment prohibited obstruction of river courses by careless tree felling or other means.61 Under the 1927 Waters Enactment, the offence became punishable by revocation of the logging licence and payment of a one-thousand-dollar fine. 62 However, enforcement of the law was made difficult as management of individual rivers was often the shared responsibility of separate States. This derived from the British administration’s delineation of state boundaries more frequently along water courses than the watersheds that obtained in the Malay polity.63 Not merely a tool to fight decentralization, river control became an

KWells_book_2.fm Page 173 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature, Ecology and Conservation

•

173

issue in its own right, leading to the appointment in 1928 of a Commission of Inquiry. Its conclusions forced the government to face up squarely to the problem of accelerating deforestation and related river silting. Tin mining and clean weeding in the plantations were identified as the main agents of erosion, to deal with which there was no specific department.64 As Maxwell’s proposal for the creation of a central department detracted from the aims of decentralization, provision was made for the appointment of separate State Hydraulic Engineers. 65 The press, which by now played a lead role in emphasizing environmental stewarding, brought attention to bear on the problem of erosion. The Malay Mail emphasized the intrinsic value of tree cover. [T]he forests perform a valuable function in preventing erosion and floods and in preserving soil fertility: an important matter in the tropics where many soils owe such fertility as they possess mainly to the natural vegetation they support.66

The Straits Times, as well, viewed forestry as having a vital role to play in helping Malaya avert the disasters faced by ancient China and contemporary USA through failure to protect forests. The Mississippi floods of 1927 and the droughts of the Midwest during the 1930s, attributed to extensive logging and forest burning, were regarded as a warning to pioneer development in Malaya. 67 As part of the environmental campaign, the press also highlighted the biological value of the Peninsula and commented at length on J.G. Watson’s Mangrove Forests of the Peninsula (1929), an account of the tidal swamp vegetation stretching from Kedah to Singapore.68 Apart from summarizing basic information, editorials in the Times of Malaya and the Malay Mail applauded Watson’s contribution towards dispelling the negative image of the mangroves as ‘fever-haunted wastes’. Attention was drawn to the west-coast islands of Pulau Lumut, off Selangor, and Pulau Besar, off Melaka, successfully brought under coconut and paddy cultivation. Similarly, Pulau Ketam, off Selangor, supported a large population of Chinese fishermen and woodcutters. Further south, in Johor and Singapore, the Orang Selat69 eked out an existence on fish and cockles. These apparently thriving communities contradicted popular notions of the unhealthiness of the habitat. The press quoted Watson. ‘[C]ontrary to what might be expected, the mangrove forests, although generally swarming day and night with mosquitoes and sand flies, are surprisingly healthy, the most malarious spots on the whole of the west coast being those where the beach is (as at Port Dickson) sandy’ … [F]ever-carrying anopheles are said to be absent and the Chinese fishermen, who take no special precautions, suffer rather less from malaria than is usually the case in inland districts.70

The variety and scale of the rich animal life that thrived in the mangroves evoked wonderment. [T]hey have flying-fox (Mr. Boswell, of the Forests Department estimated that 30,000 of these great bats flew over his launch one evening

KWells_book_2.fm Page 174 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

•

174

within an hour), numerous birds, crabs, and those amphibious mudfish which, by reason of their habit of disporting themselves on mangrove roots, led a sensational American writer to describe Malaya as a country where ‘fish climb trees’. 71

The press article conveyed the excitement of discovery beyond the confines of urban settlements, as near at hand as Port Swettenham, in Selangor: ‘What ignoramuses we office-wallahs are! How many of us knew that there was such a thing as a tropical otter?’72 Only the Times of Malaya – the mouthpiece of the business community73 – spoke for capital-intensive exploitation of the mangroves, which potentially threatened their survival. Watson’s plea for protecting the nipa, on which the livelihoods of so many small people depended, was interpreted as tantamount to ‘blocking’ progress. The criticism originated from the campaign by private enterprise to turn nipa production into a plantation industry, overlooking the sound ecological basis of the mangrove economy in existence. 74 Forestry was criticized for managing the mangroves ‘on hopelessly inefficient lines’, based on the efforts of small men eking out a subsistence, and was urged to structure the industry on more modern lines.75 Indeed, efforts to regulate the nipa palm industry were seen as prejudicing the potential for power-alcohol production on the model adopted in the Philippines. Surely those ‘local inhabitants’ would do much better as employees of a Nipah Palm Estate Company? Would they not, in fact, make an ideal labour force for the power alcohol producing estate? 76

Despite criticism, the Forest Department did not see fit to relinquish mangrove management to private hands at a time when ecologically sound forest management was gaining weight in the wider world of science. In fact, by now, the ‘inquiring’ forester enjoyed a high profile in the British Ecological Society. 77 In 1933, H.G. Champion, Professor of Forestry at Oxford, recommended application of an ecological approach to the management of sal (Shorea robusta) forests of India78 and to forestry as a whole. Among Malayan foresters Watson, with a background in the multidisciplinary orientations of agriculture, clearly appreciated the links between forestry and the related disciplines of plant physiology, systematic botany, mycology, meteorology and geology. Recognizing the lack of opportunity for forestry to work with related branches of science, he proposed the creation of a Science Bureau to overcome conceptual and financial weaknesses inherent in self-contained departments. And what would perhaps be the greatest advantage if allowed, would be the encouragement of team research; for however cordial the relations may be between workers in separate institutions, the opportunity for close co-operation is tremendously enhanced when they can meet under the same roof and can discuss their problems as they arise.79

Watson’s proposal at this juncture was significant. Coming at the end of the spate of Federal retrenchments during 1931–35 in the lead up to decentralization, the

KWells_book_2.fm Page 175 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature, Ecology and Conservation

•

175

scheme provided a cost-effective means of harnessing the multidisciplinary features of ecology for scientific advancement. It made sense particularly after forestry lost its entomologist and chemist, forcing FRI to rely on the Agricultural and Chemistry Departments for relevant expertise.80 Watson’s ideas – which sharply contradicted the prevalent civil service mentality – manifested the progressive thinking generated by the new science of ecology. Under its influence, the straightjacketed forester was being fast transformed into an ecologist by experience, if not by training. He regarded himself as a trustee, with a distinctly different role from those in other services such as the railway. There was growing consciousness within the forest service of the value of natural vegetation beyond the practical needs of wood and fuel. J.S. Smith criticized the German tradition of assessing forests purely in terms of profit. No cash value, he attested, could be put on the contribution of trees for guaranteeing environmental stability.81 New scientific orientations, and forestry’s function as a coordinating rather than a fully federal authority after decentralization, marked a significant turning point in management. Though the concept of a Science Bureau suggested by Watson was not realized, inter-departmental cooperation for addressing environmentally related problems began to take shape. The Land and Agricultural Departments jointly initiated the 1937 Hill Lands Ordinance, prompted by the effects of Chinese vegetable cultivation on Penang Hill that silted paddy lands and polluted George Town’s water supply.82 In 1935, the Malayan forester J.N. Oliphant suggested in his influential article, ‘Save the Vegetation!’, cooperation between the Agriculture and Forest Departments for soil control by using specialist officers for managing cover crops. 83 Oliphant’s proposal came shortly before the appearance of the seminal work, The Rape of the Earth: A World Survey of Soil Erosion published in 1939 by the Imperial Bureau of Soil Science at Rothamsted, Kent. It identified the problem of environmental degradation, conventionally regarded the responsibility of forestry, as one that should be addressed from the multidisciplinary perspective. The authors, Graham Jacks and Robert Whyte, envisaged the plant ecologist working in cooperation with the animal ecologist and the population expert in re-vegetating denuded landscapes.84 In the Peninsula, Oliphant maintained that application of plant ecology to agricultural improvement would help avoid destruction on the scale brought by overgrazing and bushfires in Africa and logging in the Philippines. He pointed out the way in which the judicious use of cover crops had transformed the face of the Malayan rubber industry within the space of just three years.85 Following a slow start,86 in 1934 the Rubber Research Institute (RRI) in Kuala Lumpur had made a concerted effort to draw the attention of the plantation industry to the contribution of clean weeding to extensive sheet erosion and the nitrogen starvation of tree crops.87 The problem was partially alleviated by contour terracing, based on the principle of traditional rice terracing in the region. Successful experiments by two Danish planters also gave wider currency

KWells_book_2.fm Page 176 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

•

176

to the concept of combining the indigenous practice of selective weeding, with the planting of cover crops to hold the topsoil and reduce the loss of soil nutrients.88 D E F I N I N G NEW E CO L O G IC A L A N D S O C I A L PER IM E TER S

Tropical science was co-opted to reinforce the ongoing campaign against shifting cultivation. Foresters cautioned agricultural officers and administrators against reliance on the regenerative effects of rotational ‘bush fallowing’. Oliphant argued that shorter rotational cycles adopted to cope with the depletion of primary forest would contribute, in time, to soil poverty, precipitating socioeconomic crisis as experienced in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Preservation of vegetation and action to arrest the processes of soil degradation were deemed the hallmark of civilization.89 The association of shifting cultivation with environmental degradation had figured early in the history of colonial enterprise in the Peninsula. Typical was the comment made by ‘Jungle Wallah’ on swidden cultivation in Selangor. The protection of Government is required to prevent ruthless felling of jungle for cultivation which is not permanent; never to allow tracts of lalang to be burnt, as this destroys all the young tree shoots; and to plant up waste land generally with hardy and quick-growing trees.90

The shifting cultivator was the scapegoat, despite the more extensive environmental damage inflicted by the state-backed rubber planter. 91 Particularly after the rubber industry finally turned its attention to arresting erosion, shifting cultivators bore the blame entirely for land degradation. In reality, the situation was the inevitable outcome of the disruption by colonial development of environmentally sound swiddening, characterized by short cultivation phases, interspersed by long fallow periods. Contrary to expectation that the promotion of paddy cultivation would ultimately relegate shifting cultivation to the Orang Asli, the practice continued to serve Malay livelihoods, besides providing an indispensable fallback to the populace as a whole in times of socio-economic crisis. The expansion of agriculture and settlement in the lowlands pushed shifting cultivation further up the river valleys. In the forest dominated State of Pahang where just 6 per cent of the land was settled in 1939, shifting cultivation was prevalent especially in the upper reaches of the Tembiling, Jelai and Kerau valleys.92 The mobility associated with swiddening was adapted to cash earning from jelutong tapping for the Chinese.93 The slump in the rubber market, followed by the 1926 flood that disrupted sedentary cultivation around Kuala Tahan and Kuala Lipis,94 expanded shifting cultivation. Many cleared fresh swiddens each year, leaving a trail of degradation along the riverbanks. The consequent loss of tree cover, especially neram bordering the riverbanks, contributed to river silting. It affected downriver navigation between Temerluh and Pekan, giving rise to speculation that the cumulative effects of riparian swiddening had precipitated the Great Flood. 95 Shifting

KWells_book_2.fm Page 177 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature, Ecology and Conservation

•

177

cultivation was extensive also in Hulu Terengganu. Here, as in Pahang, suitable land for paddy was limited but the extensive area of forest relative to population allowed for 10-year fallows, following three seasons of cultivation.96 However, this well-adapted system was challenged by the Forest Department’s ban on the felling of mature forests in the interests of timber preservation. 97 The opening of Forest Reserves to landless Malays to induce conversion from swiddening to paddy cultivation did not always achieve the desired transformation. As one forester acknowledged: [T]o the native rice is so vitally necessary that he is not prepared to adopt a method of, to him, questionable value until the new method has been shown to be its superior, particularly when he knows that his own system will at least produce some rice.98

In 1932, Malays and Javanese, permitted to occupy the Labu Reserve in Negeri Sembilan, grew maize, cassava, taro and pineapple, with no intention of cultivating paddy.99 With the aim of controlling the upsurge in shifting cultivation during the Great Depression, Temporary Occupation Licences (TOLs) were offered under the 1935 Land Code Enactment. These licences, which neither restricted the size nor the purpose of occupation gave shifting cultivators virtual carte blanche.100 The British remained confident, however, that the provision of land titles, Malay Reservation, and irrigation schemes for paddy cultivation would, in the long term, encourage Malay settlement. Considered more problematic was Orang Asli shifting cultivation that was likely to persist in the long term and which, practised under conditions of increasing land shortage, was less than ideal. On the west coast, apart from the Negritos, largely dependent on hunting and foraging101 and some Proto-Malay groups engaged in sedentary agriculture, most Orang Asli practised shifting cultivation. Foresters, who were concerned about the valuable timber burned in the process of swiddening acknowledged at the same time that traditional Orang Asli methods of planting, mimicking the mixed forest around them, were hardly inimical.102 Among the Temiar of Nenggiri, in Hulu Kelantan, plots were usually abandoned after two rice crops and, in the selection of new sites, the humus content was generally an important criterion.103 It was observed that clearings abandoned by the Temiar in the Perak uplands were free of Imperata and contained woody, secondary vegetation mixed in with leguminous, nitrogen fixing plants and other grasses.104 The situation was different in the foothills and the lower valleys where competition for land compelled the Orang Asli to adopt shorter swidden cycles conducive to soil and environmental degradation. The inland retreat of Semai along the Terulak River in Perak and their concentration in the Batang Padang valley, along the Tapah-Cameron Highlands road, resulted in the spread, by the 1920s and 1930s, of bamboo-dominated secondary vegetation at the expense of high forest. Natural tree regeneration was noted to be particularly slow where wild banana had invaded the lower slopes.105 In Kuala Kangsar, Hulu Kinta and

KWells_book_2.fm Page 178 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

•

178

Batang Padang and also in the Senoi-occupied foothills of Perak, foresters anticipated erosion problems. Especially vulnerable were the slopes that Temiar preferred to cultivate, to facilitate firing, clearing and crop ripening. To save labour, the tallest trees at the highest point were cut down, dragging the smaller trees in their path.106 The resulting vegetational destruction and soil destabilization were conducive to landslides and river siltation. The pressure of land shortage advanced the cycle of land degradation and the ultimate relegation of poor soils to cassava cultivation.107 As State Land Forest on the west coast gave way to Forest Reserves, Malay Reserves and plantations, traditional swidden cultivation under long cycles of rotation was no longer viable. Furthermore, although Orang Asli ‘Residential Reserves’ such as that established in Kinta in 1911 relieved the plight of some groups temporarily, DOs continued to concede land to commercial interests.108 Thus, entry into Forest Reserves in defiance of the 1934 ban was often the only recourse. It was difficult to prosecute Orang Asli ‘transgressors’ as punishment involving fines and imprisonment was clearly unsuitable. A compromise solution was adopted allowing Orang Asli to cultivate swiddens, not as a ‘right’ but a ‘privilege’, within demarcated areas in some Forest Reserves.109 So convinced were forest officers of the State’s pre-eminent claim to all land that when Orang Asli in the Terulak Reserve, near Selim, relocated under pressure, they were represented as having settled contentedly on realizing ‘they have no right to be there’. On the whole, the difficulty of excluding Orang Asli from Forest Reserves dictated a commonsense policy of ‘accommodation’. As the forester, T.A. Strong,110 admitted: Even if caught, it is difficult to know what to do with the culprits. In the eyes of the law they are guilty, but I, for one, find it difficult not to take a sympathetic view. The Sakais are relatively few in number and to them the forest appears inexhaustible, and the ruin of a few acres each year is a matter of little consequence. Furthermore this is their normal mode of living, as practised by their forbears long before the commercialized development of the land began. It is not done with the idea of gain, but only to provide food for themselves. This, I think, is one of the reasons it is so difficult to condemn their activities.111

Orang Asli claims to swidden land and fruit trees, like those of the Malays, were left largely to the discretion of individual officials. Expulsion was generally avoided, at least until crops were harvested.112 In the long-term, forestry focused on measures to hasten the shift from ‘migratory’ to ‘sedentary shifting cultivation’, already set in progress by land pressure among the Senoi in Perak. The forester was seen as fulfilling a duty in ‘educating’ the Orang Asli and, in the process, winning their confidence and persuading them to change their agricultural practices. Through this method, which the State Conservator described as a ‘barter of privileges in exchange for compliance with regulations’, the Orang Asli were expected to emerge as useful members of society.113

KWells_book_2.fm Page 179 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature, Ecology and Conservation

•

179

In 1932, as part of the programme of integrating Semai Senoi shifting cultivation into a forest regeneration programme, the Burmese taungya system114 was introduced in a section of the scrub covering Terulak Reserve. The scheme restricted Senoi activities within well-defined areas where, in exchange for the privilege of opening up new swiddens, they were instructed to interplant their crops with merbau seedlings.115 The project had its limitations for, integral to merbau regeneration was the importance of selective weeding, a practice the Senoi were unaccustomed to.116 Most importantly, the concept of taungya, based on shifting cultivation with the planting of slow-growing timber, meant keeping the cultivators perpetually on the move over a wide area. This contradicted government’s objective of restricting Orang Asli shifting cultivation to the minimum area compatible with earning a living.117 Even as the Forest Department became increasingly entangled in the dayto-day affairs of the Orang Asli, government ethnographers began to play a vital role in reviewing official policy in the light of a mounting socio-economic crisis. Fundamental to determining the legitimate rights and basic needs of the Orang Asli was ethnographic data, the collection of which became the responsibility of the Museums Service. The Director of the FMS Museum, H. C. Robinson, though a zoologist by training, studied the Senoi with C. B. Kloss and T.N. Annandale.118 I. Evans, as Ethnographer at the FMS Museums, researched the Negritos of the Peninsula.119 Later, appointed Curator at the Perak Museum,120 he was preoccupied, like his successors, with problems emanating from the Orang Asli interface with lowland development. Interest in the Orang Asli of Perak culminated in investigations by the Cambridge-trained field ethnographer, H.D. (Pat) Noone, into the Temiar Senoi. Numbering about 10,000, they were settled right across the Main Range, in Perak and Kelantan. Noon’s study, completed in 1936, precipitated the enunciation of an official policy for Orang Asli administration. Noone pointed out that there was no evidence of Temiar payment of tribute to any Malay chief as a token of submission. But the delineation of British territorial boundaries, which effectively placed them under Malay sovereignty entitled them, he argued, to the same benefits as the Malays, including land rights. As a result of Noone’s representation to the State government, the 1939 ‘Enactment for Protection of the Aboriginal Tribes of Perak’ was passed and served as the guiding policy for other States. Various provisions in the enactment sought to guarantee protection of Orang Asli interests. These included the appointment by the Ruler-in-Council of a Protector of Aborigines, assisted by the DO as Deputy Protector in his own district. The Ruler-in Council was also empowered to create and revoke Aboriginal Areas and Reserves. No Aboriginal Reserve could be alienated for mining or incorporated into Malay Reservations and Forest Reserves without consulting the Protector of Aborigines. However, such security as the new enactment guaranteed the Orang Asli was circumscribed by the power of the Ruler-in-Council to revoke Aboriginal Reservations

KWells_book_2.fm Page 180 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

•

180

for mining, granting compensation ‘at his absolute discretion’. Furthermore, to restrict aboriginal rights to Reserves, occupancy and rent exemption outside designated areas were subject to the Resident’s approval.121 For the most part, the enactment made no substantial change apart from formalizing the colonial government’s existing claims of trusteeship over the Orang Asli. With only two Aboriginal Reservations constituted, one south of Telum for the Semai and one, in the north for the Temiar, large swathes of land claimed by the Senoi remained within Malay Reserves. The absence of a precise definition of aboriginal areas, even following the Aboriginal Protection Enactment, meant that Orang Asli shifting cultivation was exposed to challenges from rival claims on land use. The resurgence of Chinese shifting cultivation during the Great Depression brought the situation to a head. In 1937, ousted from the Kerung River Valley by Chinese squatters, a Temiar community occupied certain compartments in the Keruh Forest Reserve in Pengkalan Hulu. Government attempts to move them provoked hostility. To legitimize their claims of occupancy, their shrewd leader, Bah Mat Arip, convinced Noone about the community’s interest in experimenting with the fivefield system of rotational cultivation that the ethnographer was keen to promote. The British Resident’s interest in the scheme put the SFO in a dilemma. Reluctant to sacrifice land within the Keruh Reserve for the experiment, he offered 300 ha of State Land at an alternate site in Cangkat Pinggang. Refusing the offer, the community stood firmly by its claims in Keruh Reserve. In March the following year they began felling trees for which offence all, except Bah Mat Arip, were prosecuted and whole families went to prison. Though the SFO felt that the leader, more than any other member of the group deserved a jail sentence, such feelings were set aside in favour of arriving at a modus operandi with the community through involving them in regeneration programmes in Keruh Reserve.122 The 1939 Enactment itself merely validated the discretionary policy already in force in the absence of clear-cut Orang Asli rights. The ancestral claims of the Orang Asli, which colonial forest laws had systematically dismantled, were replaced by the feeble acknowledgement of a principle of protection that had little substance. The policies drawn up by Noone for the Temiar characterized the paternalistic British policy towards Orang Asli. British rule was perceived as a blessing in so far as it sought to liberate them from economic oppression. Such notions had guided the Selangor administration in its early efforts to protect Orang Asli from Malay exploitation.123 Again, C.B. Cerruti, appointed in 1901 as Superintendent of the Perak Senoi, linked their emancipation with overall development in the Peninsula. My chief reason for illustrating the virtues and defects of the little known Sakais is to present them more closely to the attention of England, that, by delivering them from the contempt and able trickery of the other races, might easily lead them to civilization and at the same time form

KWells_book_2.fm Page 181 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature, Ecology and Conservation

•

181

important and lucrative centres of agricultural produce in the interior of the Peninsula.124

The German anthropologist, Paul Schebesta, who worked among the Negritos during 1924–25, expressed a similar urgency for Orang Asli protection. European civilisation is digging the grave of the dwarfs of Malaya as it presses further into the interior, … crowding the nomadic Semang into an area too confined for them where they are being economically smothered.125

Those who studied the Orang Asli recognized that they were an integral part of the environment and, protection for one was assumed to be protection for the other. As Noone argued: [T]oday timber, wild life and primitive people coincide in a single area. It seems not unreasonable that the interests of the inhabitants should have their protectors as well as timber and the big game.126

During the 1890s when land was plentiful, recognition of Orang Asli claims to sufficiently large spaces to accommodate their peripatetic habits informed British policy in Selangor.127 But with the increased pace of development some degree of adaptation on their part was deemed necessary. Skeat, for example, who favoured the preservation of ‘thought, law and customs’, expected the discarding of ‘barbarisms’.128 This ambiguity of attitude crystallized into a dualistic policy of preservation and reform. It was fully articulated in Noone’s blueprint for the protection of the Temiar, which enshrined core principles of aboriginal policy that remain to this day. The erosion by external economic forces of environmentally sustainable Temiar cultivation, argued Noone, called for appropriate adjustments. To this end, he recommended the adoption of a modified form of shifting cultivation, already practised by certain communities who settled in one good spot for several years, clearing each successive swidden on the slopes around them. With vegetables and new crops introduced within a ‘Patterned Settlement’, a more sedentary mode of life was expected to evolve. The new scheme was recommended particularly for the timber-rich areas.129 By adopting a more settled way of life, the Temiar were expected, in time, to assist with forest protection and elephant control. Cashing in on the campaign for recreational areas (see pp. 210–211, 215), the forester Oliphant envisaged a valuable role for them as guides for forest-related activities, including exploration, fishing, hunting and trekking.130 At the same time as pressing for unshackled aboriginal rights to saka, Noone proposed their designation as special reserves, served by modern medicine and removed from the influence of drugs and liquor. To prevent the ‘insidious and subversive’ inroads of the Chinese, their links with the Orang Asli were to be restricted to the supply of necessities such as knives, axe-heads, agricultural tools, casting-nets and cloth.131 The Temiar, he claimed, ‘prefers to deal with

KWells_book_2.fm Page 182 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

•

182

the white man and not through the medium of the Malay or Chinese mandur (overseer) who nearly always tries to cheat the aborigine in the traditional way’. 132 All the same, Noone conceded to the prevalent view that the ultimate integration of the Orang Asli within Malay society was not only inevitable but also desirable, given their shared material world, shaped by the environment. As any Christian influence would run contrary to this purpose, the role of the European government was to guide the Orang Asli, perceived generally as wild (liar), along the evolutionary path towards progress (maju).133 Securing the future of the Orang Asli in the face of a rapidly changing environment demanded collaboration between the natural scientist and the social scientist. Slow in appreciating this reality, some senior administrative officers in the Peninsula saw Noone as a ‘mere scientist sticking his nose into matters of high government policy’.134 In fact, within the context of the expanding science of ecology, the social scientist had as important a part to play as the forester in formulating and translating forest policy. Noone envisioned the Forest Department as custodian of the Orang Asli.135 This view reflected increasing public awareness of the social implications of forest protection. Questions raised, for example, by the nineteenth-century ethnographer, J.C. Prichard, as to whether humans were related to other species and the natural world, 136 found a resolution in the twentieth-century concept of a shared natural environment in which other forms of life gained parity with humans. Pertinent to this new ethical re-evaluation of life was Noone’s moral indignation against classifying Orang Asli as wildlife. ‘Should the Temiar or any other aborigines be classified as Wild Life and left to the charge of the Game Department?’ he asked. 137 Typical of changing perceptions was the opinion of Rama Menon, an Indian Court Interpreter in Pahang that the Orang Asli, hitherto regarded largely as part of the country’s fauna,138 deserved treatment as humans. He believed that bringing them under the civilizing influence of the other races in the Peninsula would best serve their interests.139 From a different ethical perspective, Theodore Hubback, the wildlife fanatic, viewed the Batek (Panggan) in the vicinity of the Gunung Tahan, as simply part of the threatened fauna he fought to preserve. 140 Both opinions reflected the emergence within modern society of new sensibilities towards the forest and its denizens. The inter-war years made clear that forestry involved much more than the codification and enforcement of laws for sustainable wood production. Global and local evidence of the adverse implications of deforestation obliged forestry to expand its agenda to accommodate the long-term interests of environmental protection, working in coordination with other development agencies. The task was complicated by the claims of forest-dependent people and ethical issues at the heart of colonial forestry. But, as will be seen, advances in natural science, ecology and ethnography contributed to a consensus that forest stewardship included protection not only of people but also of fauna.

KWells_book_2.fm Page 183 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature, Ecology and Conservation

•

183

NOTES 1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

31 32 33

G.P. Marsh, Man and Nature (ed.), D. Lowenthal, Cambridge Mass: Belknap Press, 1965, p. 36. Worster, ‘The vulnerable earth’, pp. 8–10. In 1911, Malcolm Watson identified Anopheles maculatus as a malaria vector in the Peninsula. Malaria was described as ‘the scourge of the rubber estate’. Experiments conducted by E. P. Hodgkin in the Institute of Medical Research (1931–40) noted that there was a slow overall decline, without the saturation levels reached during the 1911 epidemic. Nevertheless, Kuala Lumpur and other residential towns remained at risk because of the exposure of streams, drains and water bodies through land clearance. Medical Trends: Institute for Medical Research, 1900–1950. Jubilee Volume, Studies from the Institute for Medical Research, Federation of Malaya, No. 25, Kuala Lumpur: IMR, 1951, pp. 136, 148. L.H. Brockway, Science and Colonial Expansion: The Role of the British Royal Botanic Gardens, New York: Academic Press, 1979, p. 162. D. Worster, Nature’s Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas (First published 1977, San Francisco), Cambridge: CUP, 1985, pp. 126–128, 173–174. Roff (Selected and Intro) Stories by Sir Hugh Clifford, pp. 16–17. Maxwell, In Malay Forests, p. 7. C. Wells, Six Years in the Malay Jungle (First published New York, 1925), Reprinted, Singapore: OUP, 1988, pp. 91–92. Maxwell, In Malay Forests, p. 3. H.W.C. Leech, ‘Ascent of Bujang Malacca’, JSBRAS, 2 (1879) p. 226. F. Swettenham, ‘From Perak to Slim, and down the Slim and Bernam Rivers’, JSBRAS, 5 (1880) pp. 59–60. Wells, Six Years in the Malay Jungle, p. 87. Clifford, Studies in Brown Humanity, pp. 152–153. Anon, ‘Selangor Scientific Society’, Selangor Journal, I, No. 10, 27 Jan. (1893) p. 154. Swettenham, ‘From Perak to Slim’, p. 54. A.M. Skinner, ‘Geography of the Malay Peninsula’, JSBRAS, 1 (1878) pp. 57–58. Turnbull, The Straits Settlements, pp. 25–26. Clifford, ‘A journey through the Malay states of Trengganu and Kelantan’, pp. 1–37. Anon, ‘Selangor Scientific Society’, pp. 154–155. Lowe, ‘Values and institutions in the history of British nature conservation’, p. 333. I am grateful to J. M. Gullick for information on Samuels. C. B. Kloss, ‘Selangor Museum’, in Harrison (ed.), An Illustrated Guide, pp. 285–286. Robinson, who carried out an anthropological and zoological expedition in Peninsula with N. Annandale (1901–02), was also Inspector of Fisheries. He retired from service in 1926. Van Steenis-Kruseman, Flora Malesiana, I, p. 441. Rathborne, Camping and Tramping in Malaya, p. 157. Roff: Stories by Sir Hugh Clifford, p. 183. J. Sheail, Seventy-five Years in Ecology: The British Ecological Society, Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1987, p. 112. Wyatt-Smith, Manual of Malaysian Silviculture, I, p. III-5/S13. Hummel, ‘The value of the forests of the Malay Peninsula’, p. 1. On the Empire Forestry Conference, see p. 120, n. 126. The need for professional foresters led to the foundation, in 1898, of Cornell University’s four-year degree programme. J. Westoby, Introduction to World Forestry: People and their Trees, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989, p. 80. Van Steenis-Kruseman, Flora Malesiana, I, pp. 180–182. Van Steenis-Kruseman, Flora Malesiana, I, p. 515. F.W. Foxworthy, Commercial Timber Trees of the Malay Peninsula, Malayan Forest Records, No. 3, Singapore: Fraser & Neave, 1922, p. 5; ‘History of the Forest Department’, P/H5, p. 6. These were: mangrove forest; lowland swamp forest; lowland littoral forest; lowland dry forest; sub-montane forest; montane forest; limestone hills; lalang wastes; worked-out mining areas; and coastal islands. ‘Institution of Natural Reserves and Sanctuaries’, H.C. Robinson, Director of Museums, F.M.S. to Chief Secretary, 28 Oct. 1921, DF 511/21.

KWells_book_2.fm Page 184 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

•

184

34 Dy Conservator of Forests to Chief Conservator of Forests, 28 Nov. 1921, DF 599/21. 35 Dy Conservator of Forests, Kuala Lipis, Pahang, to Chief Conservator of Forests, 16 Dec. 1921, DF 599/21. 36 Dy Conservator of Forests, Perak South, to Conservator of Forests, FMS and SS, 21 Dec.1921, DF 599/21. 37 Conservator of Forests, F.M.S., 22 Nov. 1921, DF 599/21. 38 K.W. Dammerman, Preservation of Wild Life and Nature Reserves in the Netherlands Indies, Weltevreden: Fourth Pacific Science Congress, Java, 1929, pp. 21–22; ‘Enactment for the Protection of Nature Reserves (1916)’, Appendix I, pp. 67–68. 39 Nash: The Rights of Nature, p. 35. 40 M. Nicholson, The Environmental Revolution: A Guide to the New Masters of the World, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1970, p.177. 41 McNeill, Something New Under the Sun, pp. 41–42; Worster, Nature’s Economy, pp. 226–227. 42 W.M.S. Russell, ‘The man who invented conservation’, The Ecologist, 2, ii (1972) pp. 14–15. 43 Nicholson, The Environmental Revolution, p. 170. 44 See G. Pinchot, ‘How conservation began in the U.S’, Agricultural History, 2 (1937) pp. 255– 265; S. P. Hays, Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: The Progressive Conservation Movement,1890–1920, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1959, p. 127; Worster, Nature’s Economy, p. 267–268. 45 Appropriately, the Yale University Forestry School was founded in 1900, with Pinchot family money. Worster, Nature’s Economy, p. 271. 46 Barton, ‘Empire forestry and the origins of environmentalism’, p. 540; Pinchot, ‘How conservation began in the U.S.’, p. 236. Marsh, Man and Nature, p.xvii. 47 Sheail, Seventy-five Years in Ecology, pp. 19–20. 48 Schimper, who travelled the West Indies, Brazil, Ceylon and Java, described the rain forest in Pflanzengeographie auf physiologischer (1898). E. Warming’s Plantesamfund, first published in 1895 was translated as the Oecology of Plants: An Introduction to the Study of Plant Communities. Worster, Nature’s Economy, pp. 198, 204. 49 Sheail, Seventy-five Years in Ecology, pp. 17–18. 50 F. E. Clements, Plant Succession: An Analysis of the Development of Vegetation, Washington, DC: Carnegie Institute, 1916. 51 A.G.Tansley, ‘Succession: The concept and its values’, in Proceedings of the International Congress of Plant Science, 1929, pp. 677–686; Worster, Nature’s Economy, pp. 208–240; Sheail, Seventy-five Years of Ecology, p. 19. 52 Sheail, Seventy-five Years of Ecology, p. 17. See also p. 278. 53 Ibid., pp. 110–111. 54 During 1911–26 the following areas in the FMS were affected by floods: 1911 Kuala Lumpur 1919 Ipoh 1914 Kerian and Kuala Kubu 1924 Ipoh and Selangor 1915 Tanjung Malim 1926 throughout, especially Pahang and Perak Report of the Commission appointed to Inquire into and Report upon certain matters regarding the rivers in the Federated Malay States, Kuala Lumpur: FMS Government Press, 1928, pp. 13–17. Perak, for example, registered a distinctly higher average rainfall for the period 1910–14, compared with the period 1902–09. Rainfall records, SFO Pk. 126/15. 55 C.R. Koppes, ‘Efficiency, equity, esthetics: Shifting themes in American conservation’, in D. Worster (ed.), The Ends of the Earth: Perspectives on Modern Environmental History, Cambridge: CUP, pp. 239–240. 56 Hays, Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency, pp. 265–266. 57 Report of the Commission appointed to Inquire…into the Rivers in the Federated Malay States, 1928, p. 14. 58 Anon [E.J.R.], ‘Round about our village’, Selangor Journal, II, No. 13, 9 March (1894) p. 206. 59 K. B. Showers, ‘Origins of soil conservation in British Africa, Pt I: Southern Africa through the 1920s’, Paper presented at the International Conference on Forest and Environmental

KWells_book_2.fm Page 185 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature, Ecology and Conservation

60 61 62 63 64 65

66 67 68 69

70 71 72 73

74 75 76

77 78 79 80 81 82 83

•

185

History of the British Empire and Commonwealth, 19–21 March, University of Sussex, U.K., u.p. In the Peninsula, although a Department of Agriculture was founded in 1904, only in 1921 was an experimental station set up at Serdang, 27 km from Kuala Lumpur. S.R. Aiken, C. Leigh, T.R. Leinbach and M.R. Moss, Development and Environment in Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore: McGraw Hill, 1982, p. 260. ‘An Enactment to Provide for the Control of Rivers and Streams’, Enactment No. 9 of 1920, F.M.S. Enactments 1920, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1921, pp. 47–49. Acting Dy Conservator of Forest, Pahang West, No. 5 A; Conservator to SFO, Pahang West, 25 Nov. 1927, No. 6, CF 939/27. Among the many river boundaries are: the Kesang between Melaka and Johor; the Linggi between Negeri Sembilan and Melaka; the Sepang between Selangor and Negeri Sembilan; and the Bernam between Selangor and Perak. Report of the Commission appointed to Inquire into … the rivers in the Federated Malay States, pp. 18–19. G. Maxwell, ‘River Control in the F.M.S.’, British Malaya, 3, iii (1928) pp. 77–79. In 1913, the Irrigation Branch of the Public Works Department (PWD) was formed but its activities were confined to hydrological investigations. Reorganized in 1920, with the appointment the following year of a Chief Hydraulic Engineer, it was renamed the Hydraulic Branch of the PWD. Its duties were extended to include survey and investigation of river conservancy schemes. In 1927 staff numbers increased to include a Chief Hydraulic Engineer, 4 State Hydraulic Engineers and 23 Executive Engineers. In 1932, the work of the department was absorbed by the new Drainage and Irrigation Department. Malaysia Buku Rasmi, Tahun (Malaysia Year Book) 1965, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1967, pp. 370–371. ‘Selangor’s depleted forests’, Malay Mail, 7 June 1934. ‘Our Malayan assets’, Straits Times, 17 Aug. 1938. In 1938, the most extensive areas of mangrove found in Selangor and Perak were worked on a 40-year rotation. In Selangor production exceeded demand, but in Perak the mangrove forest was no longer worked to capacity. ‘Malaya’s Forest Revenue’, Malay Mail, 16 Aug. 1938. Living entirely in their boats, these communities led a nomadic existence within a range of about 50 km, in the mangrove creeks and inlets. They collected crustaceans and shellfish along the mud flats as well as jungle plants, but hunted only wild pig. Sopher, The Sea Nomads, p. 107. ‘An interesting tale’, Times of Malaya, 2 April 1929. ‘Malayan mangroves’, Straits Times, 4 April 1929. The fish referred to here is the climbing perch. ‘Malayan mangroves’, Straits Times, 4 April 1929. Founded in 1904 and based in Ipoh, The Times of Malaya had a small circulation, probably never exceeding 1,000 copies. Serving the large mining and plantation community in Perak, the newspaper did not survive the Great Depression. C.M. Turnbull, Dateline Singapore: 150 Years of the Straits Times, Singapore: Singapore Press Holdings, 1995, p. 95. A.P. Mackilligan, ‘Nipah cultivation in Malaya’, The Planter, 7, vii (1927) pp. 200–201. Editorial, ‘Firewood for tin mines’, Times of Malaya, 3 April 1929. Editorial, ‘Uses of the nipah palm’, Times of Malaya, 5 April 1929. Power alcohol from plantation nipa was viewed as a potential supplement for petrol, particularly to tide over periods of shortage. A.P. Mackilligan, ‘Power alcohol from plantation nipah’, British Malaya, 2, iv (1927) p. 93. Founded in 1913, the British Ecological Society was the first of its kind. Sheail, Seventy-five Years in Ecology, p. 128. J.G. Watson, ‘ Progress in forest research since 1915, with suggestions for the future’, Malayan Forester, 6 (1937) ii, p. 41. Ibid., pp. 38–43. J.S. Smith, ‘On forest economics’, Malayan Forester, 7 (1938) p. 187. War interrupted plans for setting up Catchment Boards on the model of the Thames Conservancy Board. C.W.S. Harley, ‘Soil erosion in Malaya’, Corona, 1, x (1949) pp. 26–27. J.N. Oliphant, ‘Save the vegetation’, Malayan Forester, 4 (1935) p. 6.

KWells_book_2.fm Page 186 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

•

186

84 G.V. Jacks and R.O. Whyte, Rape of the Earth: A World Survey of Soil Erosion, London: Faber & Faber, 1939, quoted in Sheail, Seventy-five Years in Ecology, p. 114 85 Oliphant, ‘Save the Vegetation’, pp. 5–7. 86 Though the planting of cover crops was widespread in Java, by the 1920s only about 70 per cent of the newly planted rubber estates in the Peninsula had adopted the practice. W.G. Ormsby-Gore, ‘Tropical agriculture in Malaya, Ceylon and Java’ in P. Kratoska (ed.), Honorable Intentions: Talks on the British Empire in South-East Asia delivered at the Royal Colonial Institute, 1874–1928, Singapore: OUP, pp. 435–436. 87 W.B. Haines, The Uses and Control of Natural Undergrowth (First published Kuala Lumpur, 1934). Second edition, Kuala Lumpur: RRI, 1940, p. 38. 88 These changes notwithstanding, caution in the application of new techniques dominated agricultural policy. At a Conference in 1938, Page of RRI claimed that not all steep land should be planted with cover crops. Indeed, he warned that it could, in some cases, prove harmful. Only when labour was retrenched during the depression did control of weeding and the retention of natural cover for soils become more widespread. McNaughton, ‘Plantation rubber in Malaya’, pp. 91–92; H.J. Page, ‘The role of cover-plants in rubber growing’, Planter, Supplement to vol. 19 (1938) p. 3; A.W. King, ‘Plantation and agriculture in Malaya, with notes on the trade of Singapore’, Geographical Journal, 93, i (1939) p. 139. 89 Oliphant, ‘Save the Vegetation’, pp. 5–7. 90 Anon [‘Jungle Wallah’], ‘Charcoal fiends’, p. 184. 91 On the position in India, see. R. Grove, ‘Colonial conservation, ecological hegemony and popular resistance: Towards a global synthesis’, in J.M. Mackenzie (ed.), Imperialism and the Natural World, Manchester: University Press, 1990, pp. 33–34. 92 Cant, Pahang, pp. 35, 58–59, 142; ‘Pahang zones of occupation’. Figure 15, p. 35. 93 Hubback to Mead, 29 July 1935, No. 1, Ad. F 294/35. 94 See Cant, Pahang, p. 110. 95 Hubback to Mead, 13 Oct. 1935, No. 6, Ad. F 294/35. 96 Sheppard, Taman Budiman, pp. 50, 55. 97 D.B. Arnot and J.S. Smith, ‘Shifting cultivation in Brunei and Trengganu’, Malayan Forester, 6, i (1937) p. 14. 98 Ibid., p. 15. 99 SFO, Negeri Sembilan and Melaka to Adviser, Forestry, CF 287/32. 100 J. Wyatt-Smith, ‘Shifting cultivation in Malaya’, Malayan Forester, 21, iii (1958) p. 148. 101 See P.D.R. Williams-Hunt, An Introduction to the Malayan Orang Asli, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1952, p. 44; T. Hubback to Mead, 13 Oct. 1935, No. 6, Ad. F 294/35. 102 Arnot and Smith, ‘Shifting cultivation in Brunei and Trengganu’, p. 14; Wyatt-Smith, ‘Shifting cultivation in Malaya’, p. 149. 103 Cole, ‘Temiar Senoi agriculture’, Pt I, pp. 194–195; Pt II, p. 270. 104 Noone, ‘Report’, p. 42. 105 Wyatt-Smith, ‘Shifting cultivation in Malaya’, pp. 142–143; Barnard, ‘The Sakai in Trolak Forest Reserve’, pp. 18–19. 106 Hubback to Mead, 13 Oct. 1935, No. 6, Ad. F 294/35; Ooi Jin-Bee, ‘The rudimentary economy of the Orang Asli’, in Peninsular Malaysia, London: Longman, 1976, p. 201. 107 After World War II, cassava constituted about two-thirds of the Temiar diet. Carey, The Orang Asli, p. 183. 108 Enclosure 1, Protector of Aborigines, in CO 717/144/12, Malcom MacDonald, Colonial Secretary, London, 14 Dec. 1939, to Shenton Thomas, High Commissioner, Singapore. 109 In 1934, Orang Asli cleared a 20-ha plot over a three-year period in the Raka Forest Reserve in the Bentung-Raub district. To arrest further claims on reserved land, the government restricted them to demarcated areas. J. Wilkinson, SFO, Pahang, 7 July 1934, No. 1, DF 269/34. Similarly, to restrict tree felling in Negeri Sembilan, Orang Asli were granted permits to operate in specified areas. SFO, Negeri Sembilan, to Forest Adviser, 25 May 1936, No. 5, DF 256/36. 110 T.A. Strong, who joined the Forest Department in 1921, served mainly in Perak and was appointed Conservator in 1936. He was transferred to Ceylon in 1938 and returned to became Director of Forests under the Malayan Union (1946–48). Van Steenis-Kruseman, Flora Malesiana, I. p. 511. Editorial, ‘T.A. Strong’, Malayan Forester, 13 (1950) p. 117.

KWells_book_2.fm Page 187 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature, Ecology and Conservation

•

187

111 Strong, ‘The Sakai and shifting cultivation’, pp. 244–245. 112 Gazette Notification No. 996, 28 Feb. 1935, No. 5, vol. XXVII, Clauses 30-31, pp. 272–273. 113 Strong, ‘The Sakai and shifting cultivation’, pp. 243–246; Barnard, ‘The Sakai in Trolak Forest Reserve’, p. 19. 114 Taungya, originally a Burmese form of hill cultivation and known in Java as tumpang sari, was adopted in colonial agro-forestry. It involved inter-planting timber trees with food crops in reforestation and plantation programmes. The south Perak experiment, in 1932, preceded the more successful programme in the early 1950s for the planting of teak and, later, yemane (Gmelina arborea), a light-hardwood of Burmese and south Asian provenance. Shaharuddin Mohamad Ismail, Mohd Basri Hamzah and Samsudin Salleh, ‘An evaluation of a 19-year-old taungya planting in Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus’, The Malayan Forester, 55, i (1993) p.1. 115 Strong, ‘The Sakai and shifting cultivation’, p. 246. 116 Barnard, ‘The Sakai in Trolak Forest Reserve’, pp. 20–21. 117 Oliphant, ‘Save the vegetation’, p. 7. 118 Robinson and Kloss, ‘Additional notes on the Semang Paya of Ijok, Selama, Perak’, pp. 187– 188; N. Annandale and H.C. Robinson, ‘Contributions to the ethnography of the Malay Peninsula, Part 1: Semang and Sakai tribes’, Fasciculi Malayenses, London: Longmans, Green, for Liverpool University Press 1903. 119 Evans, The Negritos of Malaya. 120 Though the Perak Museum was devoted principally to ethnography, Wray as Curator pursued wide-ranging interests, including botany. 121 State of Perak Enactment No. 3 of 1939, ‘An Enactment for the Protection of the Aboriginal Tribes of Perak’, FMS Enactments 1939, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1940, pp. 1–5. 122 Memo, C. Smith to Forest Adviser, 4 May 1938, Ad. F 328/37, No. 5. 123 Anon, ‘The Sakais of Selangor’, Selangor Journal, I, No. 7, 6 Dec. 1892, pp.100–101. 124 G.B. Cerruti, My Friends the Savages: Among the Sakais in the Malay Peninsula, Notes and Observations by a Perak Settler… (Trans.) I. S. Sanpietro, Como: Tipografia Cooperativa Comense, 1908, pp. 227–228. 125 Schebesta, Among the Forest Dwarfs of Malaya, p. 16. 126 Noone, ‘Report’, p. 73. 127 Anon (1897), ‘Sakai tribes in Selangor: Kuala Langat District’, p. 392. 128 Skeat and Blagden, Pagan Races of the Malay Peninsula, p. 16. 129 Noone, ‘Report’, pp. 42, 60. 130 Oliphant, ‘Save the vegetation’, pp. 5–7. 131 Noone, ‘Report’, pp. 64–65; D. Holman, Noone of the Ulu, London: Heinemann, 1958, p. 64. 132 Noone, ‘Report’, pp. 47, 51. 133 Noone, ‘Report’, p. 53; R.O. Winstedt, Kitab Tawarikh Melayu (First published 1918), Fourth edition, Singapore: Fraser & Neave, 1927, pp. 1–2. This view of government–Orang Asli relations was promoted as part of the colonial policy through school texts. See Soda Naoki, ‘The Malay world in textbooks: The translation of colonial knowledge in British Malaya’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 39, ii (2001) pp. 216–220. 134 Noone, Rape of the Dream People, p. 75. 135 Noone, ‘Report’, p. 70. 136 G. Beer, ‘Looking the other way’, in Jardine et al. (eds), Cultures of Natural History, pp. 326– 327. 137 Noone, ‘Report’, p. 70. 138 Evans noted that the Malays regarded the Negritos as ‘wild beasts’. Evans, The Negritos of Malaya, p. 32. 139 N.G. Rama Menon, Temerluh, Pahang, Wild Life Commission of Malaya, Report of the Wild Life Commission: Recommendations, Singapore: Government Printer,1932, vol. I, p. 313. 140 Hubback was presumably referring to the hunter-gatherer Batek, a sub-division of the Semang or Negrito living in the adjoining part of Kelantan, Terengganu and Pahang. Unlike other groups that had taken to hunting with guns, they continued to use blowpipes, much less destructive to wildlife, and engaged in rattan and eaglewood collection. K. Endicott, ‘Batek history, interethnic relations, and subgroup dynamics’, in R. Winzeler (ed.), Indigen-

KWells_book_2.fm Page 188 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

•

188

ous Peoples and the State: Politics, Land, and Ethnicity in the Malayan Peninsula and Borneo, Monograph 48, New Haven: Yale Southeast Asian Studies, 1997, pp. 31–32. Hubback’s attitude to the Batek was in line with the resolution of the 1933 London Convention for the Protection of African Fauna and Flora (see p. 214). It regarded the pygmies of the Parc Nationale Albert, Congo, as part of the fauna, best left undisturbed. R. Neumann, ‘Ways of seeing Africa: Colonial recasting of African society and landscape in Serengeti National Park’, Ecumene, 2, ii (1995) p. 154; ‘Preservation of game’, Memo, T. Hubback, 16 April 1928, CO 717/62/4.

KWells_book_2.fm Page 189 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

CHAPTER SEVEN

Linking Nature and Nation The insatiable greed of man has invaded the sanctuaries of unspoiled nature … Many beautiful species will be gone forever in a few years unless the strong arm of law put a stop to the massacre. It is for this country to take the lead in suppressing these outrages, which are a disgrace to civilization, an offence against God and a crime against posterity. – Dean W.R. Inge1

orest destruction under colonial rule altered the status quo between humans and wildlife, raising significant scientific and moral questions rooted in nineteenth-century Darwinism. Extinction is a fundamental part of the evolutionary process. Thus, scientific concern over the loss of species fused with eighteenth-century Arcadian and Romantic values to espouse the protection of all creation.2 Furthermore, Darwinism, by placing humans within the evolutionary order, challenged established Judeo-Christian notions of man’s dominance over nature. For Darwin, what distinguished civilized man from a savage was his humanity.3 The scientific, utilitarian and aesthetic objectives of species preservation, strengthened by acceptance of an affinity between humans and animals, rendered wildlife issues the most emotionally charged in conservation history. In Peninsular Malaysia the move for wildlife protection, largely under the impetus of hunters-cum-preservationists, was inspired by European initiatives for nature preservation in Africa. The concept of national parks was promoted as a formula for reconciling the interests of agriculture and nature preservation, the latter considered both a national duty and a source of national pride.4 The metropolitan support garnered by wildlife conservationists in the Peninsula evinced significant changes in the philosophy of Empire, premised on the concept that protection and preservation of the biological realm were congruent with good governance and the enhancement of political power. In the Peninsula itself, the wildlife preservation movement set out to promote nature as an integral part of national heritage at a time of new self-awareness and political awakening.5 The English-language press drew public attention away from the economic depression to the enduring value of nature as a cohesive, apolitical force of common identity.

F

KWells_book_2.fm Page 190 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

•

190

HU N T I N G

Settlement and widespread forest clearance following British intervention generated an abundance of browse. The attractive niches it provided for herbivores gave a temporary fillip to wildlife before the large-scale incursion of development into natural habitat. Grasses, ferns and bamboos in abandoned swiddens and in clearings around settlements were attractive to large herbivores such as the elephant, rhinoceros, tapir, deer, wild cattle and wild pig. 6 The shy gaur7 feeds mainly on grass, bamboo and ferns in old swiddens and open clearings around settlements.8 In 1874 a herd of 150 gaur was sighted at Kampung Gajah, north of Teluk Anson, on the banks of the Perak River.9 At the turn of the nineteenth century, the open country around Batu Caves in Selangor, inhabited by Jakun, was noted as a special haunt for gaur.10 Elephants had a similar attraction to scrub and fed largely on grass, bamboo, wild ginger, banana, mengkuang and rattan. Though basically a forest animal and of wider distribution than the gaur, the Asian elephant flourishes within disturbed and successional vegetation types produced either by natural events or human activity.11 In the Peninsula they enjoyed an extensive range over belukar and swamps thick with the kelubi palm, which produces edible fruit.12 The forester and hunter, E.C. Foenander,13 noted the attraction of elephants to secondary growth in the Temerluh district. The primary forest along the riverbank, destroyed by the ‘Great Flood’ of 1926, was replaced by ‘a mass of creepers, vines and rattans’, which drew elephants. 14 Though climax forest has a low elephant-carrying capacity, the activities of shifting cultivation by both Malay and aboriginal populations boosted scrub vegetation congenial to elephants.15 Within the wide area of secondary forest, elephant populations, like those of other mammals, were concentrated around salt licks essential for their survival.16 In Hulu Muda, Kedah, and the Selama, Keruh (Pengkalan Hulu) and Temengor areas of Perak, shifting cultivation by Malays and Orang Asli enhanced the attraction of elephants to salt licks. 17 At Batu, in the vicinity of Kuala Lumpur, the proximity of big mammals around Orang Asli settlements accounted for the area’s popularity with trophy hunters.18 In coastal Jeram and Hulu Selangor, elephants were numerous and were especially drawn to durian orchards.19 Like gaur and elephant, other herbivores, particularly deer and wild pig, partial to sweet potato, maize, young coconut palm and banana, proliferated with the extension of villages and plantation settlements on the forest edge. 20 Indeed, nineteenth-century immigration and increased human activity in the form of swiddening and mining may well have enhanced the country’s carrying capacity for big mammals.21 This, and the wider use of guns, which improved the efficacy of the hunt, rapidly altered the relationship between man and beast. There was a steady increase in hunting among indigenes and Europeans alike, whether for subsistence, sport, trade or the elimination of ‘vermin’. By 1893,

KWells_book_2.fm Page 191 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Linking Nature and Nation

•

191

14. Threatened animals i. Gaur: Bos gaurus (seladang) (K. Rubeli) ii. Barking deer: Muntiacus muntiak (kijang) (K. Rubeli) iii. Tapir: Tapirus indicus (badak cipan), Taman Negara (T.C. Whitmore)

barely two decades after British intervention in Selangor, as many as 20 gaur were shot by European hunters.22 Deer and pig, attracted to settlements and plantations, drew the predatory tiger out of the jungle, raising terror. In Singapore, the systematic clearance of vegetation and the tiger’s confrontation with humans led to its ultimate extermination from the island.23 Tigers proved a menace to Chinese shifting cultivators inhabiting isolated clearings in the jungle. According to one mid-nineteenthcentury report, upwards of 50 Chinese in a single village on the island were carried off by tigers.24 In Kelantan and Terengganu, where cattle were abundant, the peasantry were particularly exposed to the tiger menace. 25 Even during the 1930s, tigers were reported to be on the increase in Hulu Temengor, Perak, where hill-rice cultivation attracted sambar (rusa: Cervus unicolor).26 Besides

KWells_book_2.fm Page 192 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

•

192

open areas around settlements, tigers frequented pathways and roadsides where cattle grazed. At the turn of the century, the disappearance of travellers from roads was reported in Negeri Sembilan where tigers and panthers were described as ‘numerous’. Bullock-carts travelled in convoys, seeking the safety of numbers while passing through tiger infested areas.27 Attacks by tigers on rubber tappers and their forays into villages as a consequence of habitat loss to plantations launched estates into a war against them, resulting in a significant depletion in their numbers.28 From early times, the exorbitant prices paid in China for elephant, rhinoceros and gaur parts had created within the indigenous populace, both aboriginal and Malay, a strong tradition of big game hunting.29 By the turn of the century, Malays and even some Orang Asli began to switch from ingenious methods of trapping to the use of guns, often shared communally.30 Rhino horns, elephant tusks and tiger bones were sold for their presumed medical properties, while sambar meat was widely relished. Malays were also partial to gaur meat, considered more succulent than domestic beef.31 They customarily hunted in parties of 20–30, dividing the spoils. Those recruited as Forest Rangers and equipped with guns were reputedly some of the keenest hunters. So widespread was sambar hunting that by 1931 there was fear of its extermination in some parts of Perak.32 In Sitiawan, the rhino population was depleted, as was the gaur population in Kuala Selinsing by Senoi hunting and trapping.33 Hunters especially targeted male elephants carrying valuable tusks. The ruler’s customary claim to one of a pair of tusks, with nominal payment for the second, was probably a disincentive to elephant shooting among ordinary Malays. The situation changed when colonial game licences automatically overruled the Malay royal monopoly over horns and tusks that became prized trophies among white hunters.34 The availability of breach-loading rifles and the unprecedented opportunities for seeking big game within the expanding boundaries of the Empire generated a hunting ethos, symbolizing power, dominance and adventure. Developed into a complex art, it was reconciled with strengthening Victorian sentiments against cruelty to animals through adopting strict codes of blood sport for reducing unnecessary suffering. 35 The white hunting tradition that evolved in Malaya was less socially complex than in the British Raj. Even the most spectacular hunts of tiger, elephant and rhinoceros were not the exclusive privilege of princes and the senior administrative elite, as they were in India.36 Apart from providing sport for the local colonial fraternity, the Peninsula offered an ideal hunting ground for the visiting sportsman who had ‘exhausted every variety of game to be found in the jungles of India’.37 Much as in Africa, roads, motorcars and artificial night-lights added to the efficacy of the gun. The hunter, taxidermist and naturalist, William Hornaday, secured specimens from Selangor for New York’s Rochester University natural science collection. The State was a popular hunting ground for the trade in zoological specimens by the international agents, Messrs Katz Brothers, in Singapore.38

KWells_book_2.fm Page 193 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Linking Nature and Nation

•

193

Throughout the Empire, hunting skills were associated with character building and became an index of class. As John Mackenzie has noted, the hunt was ‘not only the symbol of European dominance, but also the determinant of class within that dominance’.39 Hunting, though fraught with danger, provided an honourable diversion from the drudgery of professional business. Police Commissioner Syers was a passionate hunter. He took great risks and lost his life in 1897, gored by a seladang in Pahang.40 Theodore Hubback and H. H. Banks, planters in Pahang and Negeri Sembilan, respectively (see below), exemplified the first generation of white hunters-turned-preservationists. It was said of Banks: His so perfectly obvious love of the wild seemed totally inconsistent with his apparently contented life of office drudgery; and, … his extremely conscientious sense of duty at the sacrifice of his spiritual ideal can be scarcely comprehensible in anyone not gifted with an almost unendurable patience and an abnormal strength of will.41

Hubback recorded the thrill of the hunt, especially of seladang. The cream of hunting in the Malay States is undoubtedly the pursuit of the seladang. The largest of the ox tribe now existent in the world, its proportions and the noble trophy which the head produces make it an especially fascinating beast to try and obtain. Add to this the extreme difficulty in approaching it in thick jungle, where it is generally found, and its great cunning when once alarmed, and it becomes a prize to be striven after with all a hunter’s energy and resource.42

The cult of trophy hunting was developed into a fine art. The size of the largest seladang horns taken by Syers and J.B.M. Leech of Perak matched the record of G.P Sanderson, a leading big-game hunter in India. 43 In elephant shooting, the record of a 41-kg pair of tusks bagged by William Hay, admired for his ‘cool courage, daring and resource’, was superseded by Tengku Kudin’s alltime record of a 44-kg pair – not far off the African record of 44.5 kg. 44 These trophies suggest the presence of mature stocks of big mammals. Game protection laws that determined the hunting seasons and limited the size and maturity of quarry were designed to protect the white hunter’s quest for impressive trophies. In tracking down elephants the main problem was identifying the footprints of animals carrying a minimum 13.6-kg pair of tusks allowed by the game licence. The hunter, therefore, had often a better knowledge of elephants than the Game Warden whose task it was to kill crop-raiders and rogues, irrespective of size.45 Big game hunting was pursued by the Malay aristocracy and gained popularity among affluent Chinese but, by and large, was dominated by the European community. P.F. Burgess, a forester during the 1950s, was a keen hunter. As a colleague vividly recalled, on one occasion, having killed a mukna, 46 he proceeded to cut off its tail before returning to continue inspection of timber licences, ‘combining as did Jorrocks, business with wholesome amusement’. 47

KWells_book_2.fm Page 194 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

•

194

The obverse side of the brutality of hunting was the affinity it bred with nature. With many hours and sometimes days spent in the wild, the white hunter was brought into intimate relationship with the forest and its dependent people. Trophy hunting by the former and the quest for game by the latter, who possessed few guns, encouraged the pooling of skills and talents for expeditions. Hunting experience offered civil servants, like George Maxwell, the close encounter otherwise denied them with the forest and its people. The cooperation given to European hunters often stemmed from the prospect of hunting down animals that were a potential threat to life and property. According to Hornaday, Malay durian collectors in Selangor ‘begged’ that a herd of raiderelephants be shot down.48 Within the forest, the European hunter interacted with the Malay and aborigine on a plane of trust and friendship, based on their mutual enthusiasm for the sport. In as much as the indigenous hunter had come to put his faith in powder and shot, the white hunter placed his on his tracker. ‘Learn from your tracker’, was the common motto and no white hunter ever risked setting out without one. Game wardens commonly used Malay Rangers as their trackers and guides.49 They were described as ‘born shikaris and very plucky, entering into the spirit of the game with real enjoyment’.50 Foenander who wrote under the pen name, ‘Pelandok’ (‘Lesser Mouse Deer’: Tragulus javanicus), claimed that one Haji Abdullah was his ‘old hunting companion’. Another hunter, F.O.B. Dennys, considered his tracker Dolah, ‘a master of his art’.51 Malays and Orang Asli were also the indispensable informants about the popular haunts of herds and were adept at locating quarry. They were generally keen on reporting sightings of animals and acted as guides, a share in the kill being more valuable to them than payment in tobacco. Shortly before his death, Syers reported the excitement among the aborigines at Batu, Selangor, at the prospect of a hunt for seladang. The meat represented a luxury, ‘far superior to the ordinary beef of commerce’. As it turned out, the kill was some 900 kg and most of it was distributed, leaving the hunter to make a kind of triumphant entry into the village, with its head and magnificent pair of horns borne in happy procession by the local population.52 When the game was bagged, the head and feet of the elephant and the head and pelt of the tiger, were carried off as trophies and their carcasses generally abandoned. Through their close relationship with Malay guides, white hunters were drawn into the world of indigenous beliefs and customs associated with the wild. In his quest for the elusive and rare one-horned Rhinoceros sondaicus in the Kinta district in Perak, Maxwell placed his faith in the spiritual skills of a Malay pawang to locate the animal. Pa’ Senik’s offering had not been without its effect, for not many days later a Malay came hot-foot in search of Malias [the guide], and told him that he had that morning seen the fresh tracks of the rhinoceros crossing a native path some twelve miles away … . 53

KWells_book_2.fm Page 195 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Linking Nature and Nation

•

195

15. Snipe shoot, Jin Heng Estate, Kuala Kurau, Perak (British Malaya, 1935)

Succumbing to the superstitious mores of indigenous hunting, Game Warden Fetherstonhaugh smeared his face with blood from the tail of an elephant he had hunted down in Pahang.54 MAN OR BEAST?

Pioneer initiative for wildlife protection in the Peninsula related mainly to birds. Their early endangerment arose from Melaka’s long-established role as an entrepôt for the trade in bird-skins to service museum collections and the millinery trade in Europe.55 In nineteenth-century Melaka, the settlement’s hinterland and the lower slopes of Johor’s Mount Ophir (Gunung Ledang) were the main hunting grounds. Collections, principally by Eurasians of Portuguese extraction, boosted supplies from the Netherlands East Indies. During the 1880s the anxiety of preservationists over potential depletion of birds-of-paradise (Paradisaeidae) as a consequence of heavy exports from New Guinea and Maluku aroused similar concerns over bird life in the Straits Settlements. The initiative of Maharaja Abu Bakar56 to arrest the trade resulted in the 1884 Johor Ordinance for the protection of bright-plumaged birds.57 In 1889, Selangor and Perak adopted a Straits Settlements Ordinance for the protection of wild birds to regulate snipe and green pigeon shooting, an even more popular sport among

KWells_book_2.fm Page 196 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

•

196

Europeans than big game hunting.58 These initiatives in the Peninsula preceded the 1909 British legislation against the import of bird skins and plumes, and a Netherlands Indies Ordinance was passed the following year for the ‘Protection of Certain Wild Mammals and Birds’.59 In contrast to the early bird protection laws aimed at species protection, subsequent wildlife legislation in the Peninsula was narrowly focused on sustaining large stocks of big game for the dual purpose of sport and revenue earnings. The earliest enactment to extend protection to big mammals was the 1896 ‘Products of State Lands Enactment’ passed in Pahang, which introduced licences for hunting rhino, elephant and seladang.60 In 1911, the Federal ‘Enactment for the Protection of certain kinds of Wild Animals and Birds’ established uniform game laws. It prohibited unlicensed shooting of female elephants and deer and immature big game of all kinds, in conformity with the codes of the European hunting tradition. It also provided for the creation of sanctuaries and reserves by the Ruler-in-Council.61 To cover agricultural and plantation interests, the shooting of any wild animal was permitted, if in defence of person or property. 62 As the new colonial wildlife laws challenged traditional rights to hunting, certain exemptions were granted to the Orang Asli and Malays as special ‘privileges’. Orang Asli were allowed to hunt for subsistence, with the use of firearms excluded in some reserves, while Malays could hunt mature sambar stags for personal consumption.63 By the end of the nineteenth century, the toll which development was taking on big game was already evident in Selangor. Rathborne lamented that the neatly weeded coffee plantations and macadamized roads had driven out the megafauna from their former haunts. [T]he sladang [sic] has been driven from its haunts. The grunt of the frightened wild pig disturbed at its meal is no longer heard, and rhinoceros has abandoned its wallow. The large shady trees are gone beneath which the elephants used to sway their trunks.64

Ideally speaking, European hunting codes aimed at reducing cruelty and sustaining population levels. But economic imperatives dictated the elimination of elephants, pigs and deer destructive to plantations. In fact, there was nothing in the game laws to prevent the killing of any rare and endangered species deemed a threat to life and property, under a licence, or with the DO’s permission. The 1921 revised ‘Enactment for the Protection of certain kinds of Wild Life and Birds’, which provided for the licensed shooting of big game, included the rare rhino and gaur.65 The hunting of ‘vermin’ was pushed to levels that depleted many species and brought some close to extinction, a fate shared also by species sought as trophies. Gaur, believed to have followed the path of settlers from the mainland in pre-historic times, were by the 1930s few and scattered.66 By the post-war years, gradual loss of habitat to settlement and cultivation, added to hunting pressure, reduced gaur to small relic populations on the upper reaches of the Pahang, Terengganu and Kelantan rivers.67

KWells_book_2.fm Page 197 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Linking Nature and Nation

•

197

By the late nineteenth century, the two-horned Sumatran rhino that occurs at all altitudes was not often sighted. The one-horned Javan rhino, occurring at lower altitudes, but verging on extinction all over its range (through Assam and Southeast Asia as far as Sumatra and Java), was recorded only in Province Wellesley, Perak, Pahang and Selangor.68 Despite its rarity, the notorious ‘Pinji’ rhino of Kinta, Perak, was killed by George Maxwell in 1925 on the grounds of its alleged danger.69 By 1937 the Peninsula is said to have harboured no more than half-a-dozen Javan rhino.70 Scientific research and collecting contributed in some degree to the depletion of big mammals. Robinson and Kloss made collections for the FMS Museums and the Raffles Museum in Singapore. They, and subsequent curators, also sent large consignments of specimens to the British Museum of Natural History in South Kensington, established in 1881 as the central repository for the Empire. Apart from professionals such as Hornaday, the businessman-cum-game hunter A.S. Vernay added to the collections of the natural history museums in New York and London.71 The ‘Sungai Lampang [Javan] Rhino’, in Hulu Bernam on the Perak-Selangor border, for example, was shot in 1932 by Vernay for the British Museum. In this case, the Honorary Game Warden, Theodore Hubback, gave permission on the grounds that the isolated animal was incapable of reproducing, making its preservation as a museum specimen important. 72 The introduction of the gun, colonial game laws and restrictions on shifting cultivation eroded the symbiosis between swidden cultivators and wildlife. In contrast to the east coast where swiddening continued, despite its official denunciation in 1904,73 the wider adoption of paddy cultivation on the west coast reduced feed for scrub and grass-dependent mammals. Increased habitat loss to rubber and oil palm and the resulting encroachment of animals on plantation settlements destabilized relations between humans and herbivores. It escalated hunting reprisals, escalating the predations of wounded-preyturned-rogue and established a vicious circle of conflict between humans and big mammals. Once introduced at the beginning of the century, rubber rapidly expanded, encroaching on the prime habitat of big mammals in the lowlands. The total acreage of rubber in the Peninsula doubled between 1915 and 1922, from 0.4 million ha to 0.93 million ha. and reached 1.4 million ha by 1940, occupying some 11 per cent of the land.74 Plantations often destroyed or impinged on the familiar haunts of elephants and their access to salt licks. Loss of food and habitat attracted displaced herbivores to rubber saplings, scrub, orchards and kitchen gardens in plantation settlements. These were regularly foraged by elephants, deer and pigs, which in turn attracted tigers.75 Though the availability of young rubber was both patchy and sporadic, it offered a ready and compact feed area, compensating in some part for the permanent loss of forage to monocultivation. In Pahang, even the gaur is alleged to have destroyed rubber saplings by nibbling top shoots. The introduction of oil palm in the 1930s was

KWells_book_2.fm Page 198 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

•

198

particularly attractive to elephants, which ate the fruit and palm fronds, while the gaur fed on the Centrosema plumieri76 cover crop and the grasses and ferns struggling through them. The forage on plantations, however, offered only temporary respite to big mammals, exposed to ultimate starvation or elimination. The impact of cultivation on elephant herds was best demonstrated on Carey Island, off Kelang in Selangor. By the mid-1920s cultivation of rubber and coconut had edged out the herd, reducing it to semi-starvation. In 1927 George Maxwell proposed putting an end to the plight of small and isolated herds through their elimination,77 though this offered no solution to the wider problem of crop raids by thriving herds. The damage to rubber holdings by elephants in Pelus, Perak, was valued at an estimated $200,000. 78 In 1927, the Jenderak Planting Syndicate in Pahang attributed a loss of some 12,000 trees – about a quarter of its holdings – to destruction by elephants.79 Similarly extensive was the damage by deer that fed on the bark of rubber trees. During the period 1919–23, a plantation in Mersing, Johor, lost some 9,000 trees as a consequence.80 The large plantations, well equipped with guns, took advantage of the ‘Wild Life and Bird Protection Enactment’ that permitted the shooting of animals destructive to crops. The threat of plantation development to wildlife alarmed the leading shikaris, who initiated a powerful lobby for wildlife protection, headed by Hubback. As one of them, C.A. Vleiland, a Malayan civil servant put it, ‘one of the greatest forces for conservation of wild life is sport’.81 The instinct to conserve sustainable levels of wildlife for hunting turned Hubback into a formidable protagonist for wildlife preservation and nature conservation in the Peninsula. He was backed by others of the sporting fraternity, especially Banks, P.R. Kemp 82 and V.W. Ryves. Concern over the depletion of rare mammals was shared also by scientists, especially H.C. Robinson who, having failed earlier to make his case with the government for conserving threatened habitat, had apprehensions about the future of wildlife in the Peninsula.83 It was Hubback, however, who emerged as the indefatigable champion of Malayan wildlife. Born in Liverpool in 1872, Hubback arrived in Malaya in 1895 and, having served in the Public Works Department both there and in Borneo, turned to rubber planting in Negeri Sembilan. By this time, his love of wildlife and his truculence were recognized hallmarks of his personality. 84 Following a spell after World War I studying a rare sheep, Ovis dalli, in Alaska, he settled in 1920 as a planter in Pahang. The State’s extensive forests, richly endowed with wildlife, provided a special attraction to the planter-cum-hunter. He made his home at ‘Sunlaws’, in Bukit Betung, a remote village on the Jelai River. It was an ideal location for his wildlife pursuits, yet close enough to the State administrative capital of Kuala Lipis to steer his conservation campaign. Despite his difficult personality,85 his unrivalled knowledge of Malayan wildlife and unstinting devotion to the cause of its preservation, won respect and admiration. Following the fashion of big game hunters of the time such as Theodore

KWells_book_2.fm Page 199 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Linking Nature and Nation

•

199

16. Theodore Hubback (RCS Collection)

Roosevelt and Jim Corbett, he turned from hunting to game preservation and the wider cause of nature conservation. His perception of conservation in terms of protecting the forest habitat as a whole was evident in his campaign for national parks, game reserves and wildlife sanctuaries for the preservation not only of large mammals but also birds and river fish. Unlike Forest Reserves, nurtured to enhance economically valuable species, Hubback pressed for parks and sanctuaries ‘for preservation of the natural features of the primeval jungle’. Such areas, he argued, would also offer protection for Orang Asli, specifically the Negritos, untainted by civilization. 86 Hubback’s residence in Pahang became the headquarters for a historic campaign for wildlife preservation, which swept the Peninsula into the mainstream of the international movement for nature conservation. In 1921, Hubback succeeded in having the Federal wildlife laws upgraded. The new law provided for State Game Wardens,87 but in the absence of salaried appointments, members

KWells_book_2.fm Page 200 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

•

200

of the hunting fraternity served in a voluntary capacity. They included, besides Hubback and Banks, K.P. Reynolds, R.R. Hartley and A.T. Edgar. A salaried Game Warden was appointed only in Johor where Sultan Ibrahim, a keen hunter, lent his wholehearted patronage to game protection. 88 Control over the hunting of tapir, elephant, rhino, gaur, and sambar deer, under the 1921 FMS Wildlife and Birds Protection Enactment, was extended to Johor (1923), Terengganu (1923) and Kelantan (1930).89 In addition, to provide for their complete protection, Hubback proposed a number of wildlife reserves and parks. These were by no means the first. During the late nineteenth century the area around the salt lick in Cior, in the Pelus Valley, had been set aside as an exclusive hunting ground for royalty and high-ranking British officers. In 1903, it was formally declared a game reserve, mainly to protect a herd of seladang. Although gazetted in 1910 as a Forest Reserve, covering 4,411 ha, it was taken under the wing of the Raja Muda, Abdul Jalil bin Idris, who was anxious that the area should remain inviolate.90 The reserves established by Hubback some two decades later were meant essentially as sanctuaries for large mammals. These included the Sungai Lui (1921), Kerau (1923) and Gunung Tahan (1925) Reserves in Pahang; the Serting Reserve in Jempol, Negeri Sembilan (1923); the Sungkai Reserve in Batang Padang, Perak (1928) and the Endau-Kota Tinggi, Endau-Keluang (1933) and Segamat (1937) Reserves in Johor. These reserves, created with the support of the Sultans, many of whom were keen hunters, incorporated scrub and secondary forest, ideal for big mammals. Outside the small sanctuaries, the existing game laws gave no protection to endangered species. A partial solution was found through the creation of supplementary State laws for the protection of rhino and other rare species, but due to the high profits involved, poaching was rife. At Ujung Permatang, Selangor, a rhino was shot by the local police officer, ostensibly to allay the fears of Chinese residents. The head he took as a trophy was later spotted by P.R. Kemp in a taxidermist’s shop in Kelang and confiscated. Whether the matter was officially investigated remains unclear.91 Hubback saw no means of effectively protecting wildlife, especially endangered species, without comprehensive laws and a properly staffed and financed Federal Game Department, under a salaried Game Warden.92 His campaign for improved wildlife administration earned him unpopularity not only with planters but also the government, firmly committed to protecting agriculture. In any case, Hubback’s precocious plan for creating a separate Game Department ran against established tradition in India, Burma and the Netherlands Indies, where game administration was integrated within forest management.93 WI L D L I F E PRO TE C T I O N A N D T H E NAT I O N A L PAR K

Undeterred by the lack of local support, Hubback resolved to canvass metropolitan sympathy and, in 1925, made his way to London. Though the Colonial

KWells_book_2.fm Page 201 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Linking Nature and Nation

•

201

Office recognized that Hubback was persona non grata in the eyes of the FMS government,94 his arrival was well timed. The conservation movement was by now fully fledged, under the aegis of the powerful Society for the Preservation of the Fauna of the Empire (SPFE), founded in 1903 following the signing in London of the International Convention for the Preservation of Wild Animals, Birds and Fish in Africa. Its founder membership was drawn largely from the colonial hunting fraternity, in response to what was considered the ‘appalling’ destruction of wild animals throughout the British Empire, more especially in Africa.95 The Society became a formidable pressure group through links with natural history circles and parliamentarians, especially Labour politicians, among whom conservation had become fashionable.96 Coinciding with conservation measures in Africa, Hubback’s petition won immediate sympathy in London. In November 1925, Charles Mitchell, Chairman of the SPFE and fellow of the Zoological Society of London, introduced Hubback to W.G.A. Ormsby-Gore, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Colonies (1921–29). Hubback’s views on wildlife protection were well received by the Under-Secretary, who decided that they were worthy of careful consideration, pending comments from the Malayan government.97 Hubback’s proposals for fauna protection in general, and endangered species in particular, also drew attention to the lack of proper administration in the UFMS. Terengganu’s unrestrained exports of the rare argus pheasant (kuang: Argusianus argus) and the plight especially of the Javan rhino, were of particular concern. The poaching of rhino horn, which fetched as much as $30 an ounce in Chinese medicine shops in Singapore, was hard to arrest.98 Ormsby-Gore would not buy Hubback’s grand scheme for organizing wildlife protection on a regional scale, covering the adjoining territories of Burma and Siam.99 He nevertheless fully appreciated the need for efficient wildlife management under a Federal Game Warden and the constitution of new game reserves for protecting the rarer species, especially gaur.100 The decision of the Colonial Office to lend a sympathetic ear to Hubback stemmed from strengthening imperial convictions on wildlife protection. Anxiety to bring the FMS in line with protection in the African colonies was evinced in Ormsby-Gore’s directive to the High Commissioner, Laurence Guillemard, to improve the enforcement of game laws. Suggested, was the addition of a provision – missing from the 1921 Wild Life Enactment – prohibiting the export of illegally acquired game trophies and instituting a rigid customs search. It was envisaged that efficient enforcement of wildlife protection laws, doubling existing revenues, would provide sufficient funding for administering an independent Game Department. 101 On returning to Malaya, armed with the Colonial Office’s approval, Hubback set to work on creating a skeletal Game Department. In the capacity of Honorary Chief Warden (1927–29), he appointed three salaried Assistant Game Wardens, one each for Perak, Negeri Sembilan and Pahang. In the UFMS, where game protection was left to the initiative of the British Advisers, however,

KWells_book_2.fm Page 202 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

•

202

conditions remained unsatisfactory and the hunting and trapping of birds for export to Singapore continued in Kelantan and Terengganu. In 1929 alone an estimated 5,500 zebra doves or merbuk balam (Geopelia striata) were exported alive from Tumpat, in Kelantan, to Singapore. In both States heavily traded argus pheasants, green peafowl (merak: Pavo muticus), monkeys and crocodiles were reported to be on the decline.102 Furthermore, neither Kedah nor Perlis, despite possessing rhinoceros and banteng (banting: Bos javanicus), had any game laws.103 Notwithstanding his credibility in metropolitan circles, Hubback was crippled by the lack of change in official attitudes in the Peninsula and the failure of individual States to make financial provisions for game protection. On the death of Banks in 1929, the post of Game Warden in Negeri Sembilan remained vacant. In Selangor, where development had impacted adversely on wildlife, no funds were made available for a post.104 In addition, the implications of Hubback’s move to tighten protection over elephants and other endangered species raised the hackles of the planting community. Land Officers, with little knowledge of, or interest in wildlife, alienated land for plantations in areas that impinged on salt licks. The competition for land precipitated a dramatic confrontation between planters and big mammals, drawing the wildlife controversy in the Peninsula into mainstream metropolitan discourse on conservation in the colonies. Crop raids that increased with the expansion of cultivation led to demands by planters for greater protection. The influential Rubber Growers’ Association (RGA)105 contended that Hubback’s recommendation for fencing plantations against crop raids was both expensive and ineffective. The Association, which also opposed the existing law requiring the DO’s prior permission to shoot crop raiders, pressed for the total withdrawal of protection for elephant and sambar, which they argued were as destructive as the unprotected wild pig. The Chief Secretary, George Maxwell, even though himself a hunter, was obliged in his official capacity to uphold the principle that the interests of agriculture were ‘paramount and must prevail’. Accordingly, a 1928 amendment to the Wild Animals and Bird Protection Enactment allowed planters with permits from the DO or penghulu to shoot big game within a half-mile radius of a cultivated area. This provision was criticized by wildlife enthusiasts as effectively placing the judgment of civil servants above the professional discretion of Game Wardens.106 The misgivings of the wild life protection lobby were substantiated by the dozens of elephants killed by Game Wardens in Pahang and Negeri Sembilan under orders from the DO. It was tantamount to Game Wardens protecting crops rather than wildlife.107 In Pahang, Resident C.F. Green, less sympathetic to Hubback’s cause than his predecessor, assigned Deputy Game Warden Fetherstonhaugh the specific task of crop protection.108 In Johor, Captain Ahmad Muhamed claimed that during his service as Game Warden (1925–29), he killed 30–40 elephants to protect agriculture.109 With many elephants

KWells_book_2.fm Page 203 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Linking Nature and Nation

•

203

wounded by buckshot and turned rogue, a vicious cycle of crop destruction and wildlife killing was established. Sport and crop protection conveniently merged and planters allegedly killed sambar and elephant with abandon. The elimination of ‘vermin’ became a profitable business among Malays keen on hunting. In Tekam, Pahang, a man was reported to have received $40 dollars for every head of elephant killed.110 Many Malays were reported to have taken advantage of crop protection to plant cassava or paddy in remote areas with the aim of attracting game, which they then shot as predators.111 The government in the FMS was on the horns of a dilemma and Clifford, as High Commissioner, was forced to find a compromise solution. Hubback’s proposal in April 1927 to establish a national park, extending the 1,425 sq km Gunung Tahan Wild Life Reserve into the headwaters of the Terengganu and Kelantan Rivers, was rejected by Clifford as it would involve closing jungle paths used by the local populace, for whom he felt a deep sentiment. 112 In 1928, however, the visiting Parliamentary Under-Secretary, W.G.A. Ormsby-Gore, was persuaded that Hubback’s proposal would offer a tangible solution to the wildlife controversy. Caught between the Colonial Office’s support for Hubback and an irate RGA, Clifford now accepted the plan as a means of vindicating the government’s policy of crop protection. He adopted the stand that as long as an adequate area was set aside for wildlife preservation, protection outside ‘must not be pressed too far’.113 Cognizant of the political influence of the European wildlife movement, the RGA in London took a more conciliatory stand than its majority membership in the Peninsula and declared the idea of a national park ‘fantastic’. It was prepared to go ‘more than half-way’ in formulating a fair policy, but shared Clifford’s concern that any reservation made should not exceed the bare needs of wildlife protection.114 Interpreting conservation as one of species preservation rather than habitat protection, Clifford envisaged that the creation of a single large national park would justify abolishing all existing sanctuaries and the withdrawal of protection for small and isolated herds. Confident that the National Park and the safety of Reserved Forests would provide sufficient protection to endangered species, he dismissed the need for separate elephant sanctuaries: I consider that the object should be to preserve that species, not as appears to have been assumed in the past to preserve individual herds of elephants.115

The High Commissioner’s policy was guided by that adopted in Uganda, recognized as the model for game protection in the Empire. Like many of his contemporaries, he failed to appreciate that the vast swaths of African savannah are able to support high densities of large herbivores. Contrastingly, an equivalent area of Peninsular rain forest has a smaller carrying capacity for herbivores, whose dependence on scattered patches of scrub and grass in disturbed habitat necessitates foraging over a wide area. It was estimated, for example, that a herd of about 14 elephants required a minimum range of 200 sq km in pre-World

KWells_book_2.fm Page 204 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

•

204

War II Sumatran forest habitat.116 In the absence of scientific research and data on big game in the Peninsula, ecological realities were poorly understood except among seasoned hunters with firsthand knowledge of wildlife habits and habitat. In 1929, in anticipation of the creation of a single large sanctuary, Clifford withdrew control over elephant and sambar, regarded as the most destructive to crops. This move the wildlife conservation lobby declared as outrageous. Hubback wrote in emotional tones to the Chief Secretary, William Peel: No man, with any feeling of decency regarding what is fair and just to wild animals can contemplate these happenings with anything but disgust and nausea.117

His sense of ethical outrage was shared by the then Acting Director of the FMS Museums, Evans, also a hunter and member of the SPFE. He had served at various times as Game Warden in Selangor and Perak and questioned the right to destroy ‘the wonderful fauna with which Nature has endowed the country’. [S]uch irrevocable acts, committed in one generation, are often bitterly regretted in the next, when too late, as has been the case with the destruction of the quagga in South Africa and the bison in America.118

As an ethnographer, his interest in wildlife protection tied in with social concerns. The unrestricted shooting of deer, he argued, would ultimately deplete stocks, affecting Malay dependence on venison for meat and cash earnings from the sale of horns.119 Evidently, there was a deep division of opinion on the issue of wildlife protection. Without Whitehall’s support for the small but tenacious conservation lobby in the Peninsula, the Malayan government, yoked to capitalist interests, would have given unqualified protection to agriculture, to the exclusion of wildlife.120 In 1929, as part of the policy for withdrawing protection outside the proposed Gunung Tahan Park, the Serting Game Reserve in Negeri Sembilan was abolished. The Yang di Pertuan (ruler) and, Dato Klana, the district chief of Sungei Ujung, favoured retention of the reserve to protect gaur but conceded to the Resident’s influence in the State Council, which resolved that protection of a dozen or more gaur did not warrant setting aside some 26,720 ha of valuable agricultural land. Resident J.A.W. Simmons argued that the State’s herd could survive in the vacant highland tracts, failing which there was an adequate stock of some 500 gaur elsewhere in the Peninsula.121 As it turned out, the Resident’s strong views on the issue were determined by the State Council’s prior commitment to sell a large area within the reserve to a rubber plantation company.122 Under Clifford’s plan to revoke existing sanctuaries, the axe fell also on the Sungai Lui Reserve, in Pahang, bordering Negeri Sembilan, constituting about 17,200 ha. Only the larger Kerau Reserve of 53,000 ha, important for gaur, and to which Clifford had a personal attachment, was exempted. 123 Nature protection in the Peninsula compared poorly with the strong official and public support for the cause in the Netherlands Indies. Whereas in the Peninsula nature protection was left to the efforts of committed individuals, in

KWells_book_2.fm Page 205 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Linking Nature and Nation

•

205

Java the conservation movement originated with the founding, in 1912, of the Netherlands-Indian Society for the Protection of Nature (Nederlandsch-Indische Vereeniging tot Natuurbescherming) with government scientists at its helm.124 By a 1919 Act, a total of 33 nature reserves were created.125 This was followed by the 1924 National Ordinance for the Protection of Nature and Game, extending protection to near-extinct and ‘useful’ species throughout the Netherlands Indies. Passed some three years before the Peninsula withdrew control over elephant and sambar, the Dutch Ordinance threw into relief contrasting attitudes to wildlife conservation. By the time the FMS abolished wildlife sanctuaries there were 72 Nature Monuments in the Netherlands Indies, including 55 in Java, based on the criteria of natural beauty and scientific interest. In 1932, the Ordinance for the creation of Game Reserves was passed through the influence of the Netherlands Commission for International Protection of Nature (Nederlandsche Commissie voor Internationale Natuurbescherming, NCIN).126 In the course of coordinating conservation efforts and collating new scientific data, the NCIN was able to set up a healthy dialogue with the Netherlands Indies administrative and scientific civil service, as well as the indigenous elite.127 In fact, the Commission won ready support from members of the Association of Officials of the Department of the Interior for seeking legislation against widespread poaching and for appointing a special officer for nature protection. 128 There was no comparable official support for nature conservation in British Malaya, a situation not helped by Hubback’s personality. Moreover, service rules prevented the participation of members of the scientific service in the wildlife controversy. Evans’s open views on wildlife protection earned Guillemard’s stern reminder that criticism by civil servants of government decisions not directly related to the specific departments they served, was not conducive to promoting ‘good discipline’.129 Wildlife protection was further hampered by poor inter-departmental coordination and peer review, aggravated by the ongoing rivalry between Game Wardens and foresters. Hubback’s distrust of the forest service was matched by Cubitt’s rejection of the notion of an independent wildlife administration, particularly at a time of financial stringency. Cubitt, the chief architect of Malayan forestry, argued that as most of the Malayan game was found in the forest, a separate administration for game protection, such as in Africa, was unwarranted. 130 Both Cubitt and his successor, Mead, advocated the integration of wildlife preservation with forest management as a means of saving land for promoting agriculture. As only a fraction of Production Forests was disturbed at any one time by logging and silvicultural treatment, areas within them were proposed as sanctuaries. These were to complement the more remotely located Protection Forests, dedicated as special breeding sites and ‘absolute game sanctuaries’. Foresters were confident that there were within their number, some with sufficient knowledge of zoology, able to undertake the extra task of game protection, as had the Perak Game Warden, W.E. MacNaught, during his 18-year service in Thailand and

KWells_book_2.fm Page 206 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

•

206

Burma.131 In Cubitt’s view, the 500-strong forest staff, which already managed wildlife sanctuaries within Forest Reserves, was in a better position to provide fauna protection than a handful of Game Wardens working independently. He also felt that the Forest Department would be able to deal a more even hand in ensuring that wildlife preservation did not override agricultural interests. 132 Cubitt’s case for absorbing game protection into forest management, after the British tradition in India and Burma, contradicted evolving international scientific thinking which favoured the appointment of professional Game Wardens able to work and conduct research within the broader framework of environmental conservation.133 Hubback on his part remained unconvinced that an already under-staffed Forest Department, with little expertise in wildlife protection, was up to the task of game protection. Indeed, in a private letter to Mead, Cubitt himself expressed his misgivings and doubted if there was ‘a single forest officer who knew much about the distribution and habits of the wild fauna’. 134 Essentially, the interests of the respective services remained hard to reconcile. By virtue of their training, Forest Rangers and Game Rangers were dedicated to distinct and separate tasks. The inspection of timber coupes, for example, could not be combined with the tracking of wildlife, nor could reconnaissance for apprehending game poaching be effectively integrated with apprehending timber theft. The fact that the Conservator was unable to assist in prosecuting poachers among whom, allegedly, were his own staff, did not inspire Hubback’s confidence in the Forest Department’s capacity to administer wildlife. 135 In September 1929, protesting against the ‘unsympathetic’ and ‘hostile’ attitude of the government, Hubback resigned as Honorary Game Warden and made his way once more to London.136 Again, his arrival was well timed. Earlier that year, the Fourth Pacific Science Congress in Java, chaired by Professor Elliot Smith of London University, had addressed the theme of Preservation of Wild Life and Nature Reserves. The international wildlife trade centred in Singapore, coupled with lax game laws in the Peninsula frustrated Dutch conservation efforts in the Netherlands Indies.137 The issue was especially embarrassing given that conservation in the Netherlands Indies drew much of its inspiration from the wildlife protection movement in Britain. Among the rare species protected in the Netherlands Indies by the 1924 Ordinance for the Protection of Nature and Game were the orang-utan, crown pigeon (Goura spp.) and birds-of-paradise. The export of orang-utan, in particular, created international outrage and led to the 1925 Ordinance (Staatsbland No. 566) for its total protection.138 In spite of this, smuggling continued, including exports from the Gayo area in Aceh to Penang, arousing strong protest in the British press.139 Thus, the Congress of the Pacific Science Association resolved to press for appropriate laws to prohibit the trade in wildlife and their parts, unless licensed by the country of origin. The 1931 Ordinance for the Protection of Fauna, the draft of which was presented at the Conference, 140 marked a milestone in the effort to curb illicit trade in the Netherlands Indies. It was only

KWells_book_2.fm Page 207 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Linking Nature and Nation

•

207

following this that the FMS and the SS made their own legal provisions, though the lack of parallel laws in the UFMS remained a significant loophole.141 External pressure was also instrumental in the restitution, in 1931, of elephant protection, lamented by one planter from Pahang as having become a ‘fetish’. 142 Although the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Passfield (Sidney Webb), supported Clifford’s policy that protection of agricultural interests, particularly of the Malay peasantry, was paramount, Parliamentary pressure for wildlife conservation could not be ignored.143 The British government fully endorsed the SPFE campaign for habitat-related species protection that supported Hubback’s cause. Our Society has no desire to interfere with the reasonable control of game by planters, settlers or others, or with legitimate sport or trade. The object of our Society is to preserve for future generations a certain number of animals living under their natural conditions.144

On 21 November 1929, in an influential speech in the House of Lords, Onslow, Chairman of the SPFE, urged the government to make ‘every proper and reasonable effort’ to preserve game, especially by creating national parks and reserves. He observed that compared to the Dominions, insufficient attention was being given to game protection in British colonies such as the FMS. He referred to the lead taken by the Belgians, in 1925, in setting up the Parc Nationale Albert in Kivu, Congo, specifically to protect mountain gorillas.145 Only as a result of the Belgian representations had the British begun to investigate fauna protection on the adjacent Ugandan side of the park. 146 The bison in the USA and Canada, and the moose in Norway and Sweden, had been successfully saved at no cost to development, he argued.147 The strong Parliamentary support Onslow won was tantamount to a mandate for the protection of fauna in the Empire, which Passfield was prepared to interpret as the preservation of those species ‘not positively and directly disastrous’ to human interests.148 Most importantly, the idea of parks and reserves was reconcilable with crop protection, advertised in the British Parliament as being mainly in the interests of indigenous agriculture.149 Following his address to Parliament, Onslow, in a letter to Passfield, reiterated the case for wildlife protection in Malaya, drawing attention to the headway being made towards conservation in the Netherlands Indies.150 For species that could not be protected effectively in the projected national park, a second was proposed, possibly in Johor.151 As a result of the support the wildlife controversy in Malaya won in both Houses of Parliament, Downing Street concluded that pursuance of agricultural protection should be matched by adequate provision for wildlife preservation in the form of one large sanctuary. To ensure that its own stake in colonial wildlife protection was not prejudiced by the rancour between Hubback and the Malayan administrators, the Colonial Office made all further decisions on wildlife administration subject to its approval. 152 By the end of 1929, the governments of Kelantan and Terengganu indicated their willingness to dedicate 98,785 ha and 68,4210 ha of forest, respectively, for

KWells_book_2.fm Page 208 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

•

208

extending the Gunung Tahan Reserve, but without any financial commitment or guarantee against revocation of whole or part of the territory. Now able to move forward, Lord Passfield appointed Hubback, in 1930, as Chairman of a Wild Life Commission, in acknowledgement of his wide experience and knowledge. The Commission’s brief was to investigate the situation regarding wildlife in Malaya and to suggest ways and means of protecting both agriculture and threatened fauna. On the basis of the report, the Colonial Secretary hoped to formulate a comprehensive policy on wildlife administration.153 To gain the confidence of the planting community, whose relations with Hubback were deeply antagonistic, the Colonial Office appointed Gerald Hawkins, a civil servant, as independent and impartial Assessor.154 The Commission’s appointment coincided with the retirement of Clifford, whose replacement by Sir Cecil Clementi in 1930 opened the way for a fresh dialogue. NATURE AND NATION

The Wild Life Commission based its report on evidence given by witnesses during the course of 64 interview sessions held, during August 1930 to March 1931, across the length and breadth of British Malaya.155 Contrary to the government’s original intention, the Commission’s deliberations were made public, on Hubback’s insistence that ‘the widest publicity be given to the opinions and views of the general public’.156 The dailies gave comprehensive coverage to the sittings of the Commission,157 with comments on its findings. Some criticized the format of the questionnaire as designed to elicit the desired answers, a charge stoutly denied by the Commission.158 It maintained that its conclusion in favour of wildlife protection was determined by the unequivocal and independent views of witnesses. Drawing evidence from a cross-section of society – ranging from the peasantry to civil servants and members of the business community – the Commission presented a remarkable and unprecedented account of the humananimal encounter in a variety of situations. Full press reports of the evidence of witnesses fanned passions and generated mixed reactions. The statement by Professor B.A.R Gater of the King Edward VII School of Medicine, Singapore, about the role of mammals as agents of tropical typhus, seized the press headline: ‘Animals which spread disease … Fever danger’.159 Sectarian interests assumed a moral tone and a correspondent, under the pen name, ‘Sportsman’, spoke against the ‘cruel and senseless slaughter’, resulting in rogue animals threatening the livelihood of the kampung folk.160 These diverse views and attitudes came together in a consensus favouring a national park. The Times of Malaya, however, questioned the wisdom of declaring the park inviolate at the expense of mining activity and considered a separate Game Department a luxury in the light of the Forest Department’s offer to administer wildlife.161 As opposed to the sharp division of opinion among Europeans, the attitudes of the Asian commmunities were generally ambivalent. Both Malays and

KWells_book_2.fm Page 209 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Linking Nature and Nation

•

209

Chinese desired the freedom to hunt game but considered a degree of control necessary for sustaining stocks. Tigers kept down wild pig, destructive to agriculture;162 but the serious decrease of sambar, it was feared, ‘may upset the balance to such an extent that tiger may take to cattle killing’. A Malay Forest Ranger appreciated that, notwithstanding crop devastation, elephants assisted forest regeneration by keeping down bertam palm and bamboo.163 The timely screening in the leading cinemas of Chang, depicting the fantasized dangers and thrills of jungle life, cashed in on the public’s preoccupation with the wildlife debate. It was a potent reminder of the ambiguity of human relations with the wild.164 The views of Malay villagers who met the Wild Life Commission betrayed a growing unease that the pace of development was fast eroding the essential balance between wildlife and humans.165 Their attitudes discredited Hubback’s firm belief that many indigenes had ‘few ideals of sportsmanship and … little consideration for any form of wild life’.166 Contradicting his stereotyping, the Commission’s evidence revealed Malay society to be no exception to the ambivalence that characterized rural attitudes to nature the world over. In the ricegrowing environment of Kedah, appreciation of the value of the common moorhen (tiong air: Gallinula chloropus) in eliminating rice pests did not prevent their capture for consumption and sale.167 A similar dichotomy was evident in the attitude of a Kelantan peasant, relieved by the decrease in belibis (lesser whistling duck: Dendrocygna javanica), which fed on paddy seedlings, but sorry all the same to lose the pleasure of listening to them.168 A deep sentiment for nature as heritage was evident in the testimony of other witnesses. A village head from Johor considered a game reserve a necessary ‘ornament to the country’. 169 His counterpart in Perak regretted that sambar might never be seen by his grandchildren unless protected.170 For some, the threat to animals that symbolized the dual face of a harsh but bounteous nature signalled the need to return to the simple philosophy of fair play and tolerance. As one witness from rural Negeri Sembilan put it: The Lord God created man and beast: the beast, like us, has to look for food, and so long as the beast keeps to his proper haunts and limits, no action should be taken against him…I like seladang, elephant and tiger who all do good in the jungle as men do good outside.171

Another Malay witness could not see why animals should be excluded from the fundamental ethics that guided human society. I think it is good to stop giving a reward for shooting tiger. The rich should not devour the poor, the great should not harm the humble, nor should man oppress the beast.172

Generally, the anxiety expressed by Malay witnesses over the likely depletion of wildlife173 was rooted in mixed utilitarian, ethical and aesthetic concerns, broadly characteristic also of attitudes in the West.

KWells_book_2.fm Page 210 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

•

210

Faced with conflicting opinions over the question of wildlife preservation, the English-language press, in contrast to the censored vernacular press,174 freely canvassed support for the concept of a national park. A good selling point was the rationale that extending the Gunung Tahan Reserve into the largely untouched mountain interior of Kelantan and Terengganu would provide a wildlife refuge and thereby justify crop protection in the lowlands.175 The Malay Mail, which took account of the safety not only of the European plantations but also of the Chinese kongsi, considered a national park an effective means of segregating wildlife for the protection of agricultural and mining settlements. 176 The Straits Times envisaged the park as a sanctuary for wildlife in the wider context of nature conservation. Expressing concern for the future of Malayan fauna after Hubback’s resignation from his post as Honorary Game Warden, a Straits Times editorial argued the case for an holistic programme of conservation, integrating the long-term interests of society with nature preservation. 177 Especially appealing to the entrepreneurial Malayan populace was the portrayal of nature as a material asset. The editorial’s reference to the unabated problem of siltation in the Pahang River and its adverse economic consequences linked wildlife preservation to the wider issue of forest protection. It is absolutely imperative that large sections of the country should be allowed to remain in the primeval condition … and so long as this is recognised it is surely also no great step to keep not only the forest but also the fauna in that forest in a state of conservation.178

With press support, Hubback successfully transformed the campaign for a national park for wildlife protection into a wider campaign for nature conservation, in tune with the current international movement. Attention was drawn to the apparent official indifference to the dramatic strides being made globally in wildlife conservation. Commenting on the proposals for the national park, the Straits Times observed: [T]here seem to be grounds for supposing that some of those in high places do not regard the proposals with exactly wholehearted enthusiasm. If this is a just description of the position, then the authorities can be assured that they are lagging far behind world opinion on the subject.179

The economically-focused Malayan government was reminded of the Labour government’s policy as expressed by Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald, a keen conservationist and member of the SPFE,180 at the 1931 International Congress for the Protection of Nature (ICPN). His Majesty’s Government regards itself as a trustee for the protection of nature, not only in the interests of their present inhabitants but also in those of the world at large and of the future generation.181

The proposed national park was portrayed as a potential source of recreation and adventure, apart from serving as a refuge for wildlife. In a series of articles in the Sunday Times, Hubback regaled the public with his jungle ad-

KWells_book_2.fm Page 211 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Linking Nature and Nation

•

211

ventures in Pahang and in the still unexplored wilds of the Terengganu interior, earmarked to become part of the National Park.182 The idea was mooted that the National Park would be ‘the first of its kind in Asia’ and a pride to the nation.183 National sentiments, which hitherto had had little scope for foment within a federation of separate sovereign states, were powerfully evoked for the first time. Nature was portrayed as a common national heritage, to be held in trust, to avoid the irrevocable mistakes made elsewhere.184 To ensure that Malaya did not lag behind other countries was represented as a matter of national pride. The creation of Kivu National Park in Congo, Yellowstone National Park in the USA (1872), Kruger National Park in South Africa (1926), as well as numerous other sanctuaries throughout the world, were cited as evidence of enlightened thinking.185 Apart from bringing civilization forward, they brought honour to the country. These sentiments were borrowed both directly and indirectly from the new gospel of nature conservation in the Empire then being preached by Dean W. R. Inge (1911–34) of St Paul’s Cathedral. A national figure who wrote extensively on religion, science and ethics, he lent inspiration to the hunters-turned-conservationists in Malaya. Dean Inge and H.G. Wells 186 were among the many who sent letters of support to Hubback.187 Under the influence of these new trends, the Game Warden V.W. Ryves declared: …It is for this country to take the lead in suppressing these outrages which are a disgrace to civilisation, an offence against God and crime against posterity…With our wide Empire we can do more than any other nation to protect animal life, and …if our legislators will have the courage to deal fiercely with this evil…they will be considered by future ages to have taken a step forward in civilisation and to have thereby brought honour to their country.188

The Wild Life Report was approved by the Colonial Office but its implementation, including the creation of an independent Game Department and the National Park, was delayed by the Great Depression and government preoccupation with the immediate issues of the 1932 decentralization and retrenchment.189 The lack of efficient game administration effectively undermined the Wild Life Commission’s proposal for setting up a Wild Life Fund from the fees generated by licences and fines. Furthermore, the decentralization scheme that Clementi revived as part of his wider vision for a Pan-Malayan Union190 had mixed implications for wildlife conservation. While a ‘Union’ promised some uniformity and coordination, decentralization threatened the Wild Life Commission’s recommendations for creating an integrated Federal Wildlife Department, setting the High Commissioner on a collision course with Hubback. Clementi’s uncompromising stand was met by Hubback’s sardonic comment that it would be possible to replace the High Commissioner but not the rhino and seladang when they were wiped out.191 Within the retrenchment plan, wildlife administration fell among the services that were transferred to State control.192 Under the new arrangement, Hubback

KWells_book_2.fm Page 212 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

•

212

was appointed by each of the constituent States of the FMS as Honorary Game Adviser but with no legal power to administer wildlife, which remained with the Resident. The lack of provision in Negeri Sembilan, for example, for wildlife protection drew Hubback’s acerbic comment that the State Game Warden was merely a rubber stamp of the Resident’s Secretary, ‘a man who … avoids losing himself by never going into the jungle’.193 The drastic retrenchments in 1932 resulted in a further setback,194 with a substantial 35 per cent cut in the 1934 budget for wildlife administration. Even Pahang, the most important State for wildlife, was not spared. Nothing grieved Hubback more than the termination of the services in Perak of W.H. MacNaught, the last remaining FMS State Game Warden.195 While wildlife administration suffered, the number of gun licences issued steadily increased. The sale of ammunition rose from roughly 1 million rounds in 1929 to 1.7 million in 1938, raking in considerable revenue for the government.196 Lack of provision for proper enforcement of game laws meant that poaching was on the rise.197 The profits reaped from the sale of poached game and game parts far outstripped the fines payable, if prosecuted. In the 1930s, the fine for killing a rhino was $250, compared to the market value of a carcass at $2,500 and a horn at $100.198 In 1935, a Malay in Kuala Lipis, prosecuted for shooting and killing five berkuk or large green pigeons (Treron capellei), was committed to a $15-dollar fine or two weeks imprisonment. Yet the killers in Hulu Tembeling of a gaur and a large-tusked elephant failed to be tracked down. 199 The setback in implementing the recommendations of the Wild Life Commission Report, resulting from the retrenchments in wildlife administration, provoked sharp editorial reproof in the Straits Times. The government was accused of flouting the wishes of the Colonial Office.200 With the dim prospects held for conservation by the renewed move towards decentralization, only an unflagging press campaign kept the issue of the Wild Life Commission’s Report on the boil. Wildlife and nature preservation were skilfully contextualized within a socially and politically disparate Malayan scene that lacked a clear national identity. Concepts of nature and nation were powerfully linked by the press. The magnanimous territorial concession by the three sovereign rulers of Pahang, Terengganu and Kelantan for the proposed National Park symbolized an historic pan-Malayan initiative.201 Delay in creating the National Park tested the patience of conservation lobbyists both in Malaya and Westminster. Hubback accused the authorities of foot-dragging: Are we as a Nation, to allow the conservation of wild life to be undertaken by local Governments as a purely domestic policy? The pronouncement of the Prime Minister [at the ICPN Paris meeting] is against this.202

Conservation, which Hubback predicted would in time ‘command the interest of all mankind in its moral, social, economic and cultural development’, was

KWells_book_2.fm Page 213 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Linking Nature and Nation

•

213

viewed as the responsibility of the larger state and nation.203 ‘Nation’, as an apolitical concept, transcending contemporary issues of decentralization, identity and ethnicity, entered the environmental press propaganda. A national park was considered a symbolic monument that would capture the collective imagination, including even those only remotely interested in wildlife preservation. It would help put the nation on the map, as had the Kruger National Park in South Africa, and set an example for the rest of Asia to follow.204 Mounting pressure in Parliament and the unanimous press support in Malaya for proper wildlife administration engaged the attention of Sir Samuel Wilson, the Permanent Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies who arrived in 1932 to report on the decentralization issue. Recognizing the impasse between Clementi and Hubback as the major stumbling block, he appealed to the High Commissioner to review the retrenchment plans for the Wild Life Department and reconsider Hubback’s offer to coordinate wildlife management in the FMS as Honorary Adviser. He felt that Hubback, in the capacity of an Adviser under the High Commissioner, would be in a better position than individual Residents to supervise negotiations with the respective States for the proposed national park.205 Though cautious about putting pressure on the High Commissioner, Wilson was anxious to satisfy Westminster. I make these suggestions for your consideration only. I want you to understand that the Secretary of State is exposed to a great deal of criticism in this matter, some of which is not too easy to meet.206

The High Commissioner could hardly ignore what amounted to a plea. He felt unable to withdraw the retrenchments but conceded to accepting Hubback’s free services to coordinate wildlife management. Hubback was totally won over and declared Clementi, whom he had hitherto treated contemptuously, as ‘always extremely kind [and] sympathetic’ and in accord with the aspirations of wildlife conservationists.207 With renewed optimism, Hubback anticipated extending his services as Adviser to the SS and UFMS. From the High Commissioner’s perspective, rapprochement with Hubback and support for the notion of a national park could, after all, advance his own vision of a pan-Malayan union within which the UFMS might conceivably be attracted.208 Apropos ambitions for a union, efforts were already underway to foster a common Malay cultural identity across the Peninsula. A key national institution of learning, the Sultan Idris Training College at Tanjung Malim, Selangor, had been founded in 1922 and was envisaged as ‘a university of the Malay race’. 209 The colonial government’s attempt to formulate a monolithic Malay culture, based on the bedrock of rural life, was supported by modern instruction on agriculture and forestry.210 Thus, the proposed national park offered a neat solution for resolving the wildlife controversy in a way that would enhance both the pan-Malay and pan-Malayan identity. The concept of a common national identity, nurtured by the conservation lobby, could help mend the fissures that threatened decentralization. The business community’s opposition to the scheme,

KWells_book_2.fm Page 214 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

•

214

economic hardship and the awakening of self-identity among the Chinese and Malays contributed to a climate of unrest.211 The concept of the national park for fostering a common sense of heritage within an otherwise divided society was serendipitous. Furthermore, it endorsed Whitehall’s policy for nature conservation as a flagship for Empire. Preservation of Imperial Fauna should be one of the purposes of the Colonial Office, so far as it has responsibility, and I would like to see that responsibility more realized. Much has been destroyed that can never be replaced.212

Though Hubback’s ideas were initially believed by many in Whitehall to be ‘somewhat large’,213 they were fully in harmony with the notion of a new ‘Empire of Nature’ formulated by the Colonial Office in alliance with the SPFE. What had begun as a partisan campaign by a fraternity of hunters-turnedwildlife preservationists, represented by Hubback in Malaya, Onslow in Africa and Jim Corbett in India, had been subsumed within a full-blown, Empirebased conservation movement. In 1933, the International Convention for the Protection of African Fauna and Flora was held in the House of Lords, with Onslow heading the British delegation. This meeting was a landmark in two respects. First, it represented a significant shift in British policy from reliance on game laws to the provision of game parks for wildlife protection. Second, the view expressed by Crown Prince Leopold of Belgium at a post-conference lecture, declared nature conservation as an ‘ethical and economic necessity of civilized nations’.214 The resolution of the conference to press governments to establish national parks, had repercussions beyond the African arena. 215 The following year, under the initiative of Ramsay MacDonald, Whitehall formed a small Inter-Departmental Committee to consider a meeting in Asia and Australasia on similar lines as the African Convention for the protection of fauna and flora.216 In 1935, the SPFE sent Sir Thomas Comyn-Platt on a visit to Malaya, under the auspices of the Colonial Office. Parallel missions went to various African territories.217 Identifying conservation as a national issue, the SPFE representative placed his confidence in the sovereign influence of the Sultans to create greater environmental awareness among the Malays as part of a wider effort to win public cooperation: The real need is propaganda with the object of convincing all elements of the population alike that wildlife is a valuable asset, the protection of which is to the advantage of all.218

Guided by Comyn-Platt’s comment that the problem of wildlife protection derived not from the lack of legal provision but the difficulties of enforcement, the press called for increased public vigilance against poaching and greater efforts towards fencing crops and plantations.219 Editorial leads, once vexed by conflicting views on game preservation, espoused an increasing conviction about the merits of nature conservation as a worthy investment for recreation,

KWells_book_2.fm Page 215 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Linking Nature and Nation

•

215

health and tourism.220 Under the spell of the Tembeling River he had navigated, Comyn-Platt vouched for the national park’s potential for sightseeing and recreation.221 This struck a cord with those wildlife enthusiasts who proposed reconciling recreational with economic objectives. As the Pahang Game Warden A.H. Fetherstonhaugh argued, millions visited national parks in North America and South Africa. The same could be done in the Peninsula, with sufficient capital outlay and improved infrastructure. ‘There is no reason why a Malaysian national park with its unsurpassed tropical scenery and unique Fauna should not be similarly attractive.’222 Responding to the claims of some that wildlife preservation was being promoted purely for ‘sentimental reasons’, Hubback made a pointed reference to wildlife preservation as a hallmark of progress. [W]hy ignore that Wild Life is one of the resources of the country? It is so recognized in North America, in South Africa and many other countries. It is probably not recognized as such in China, Tibet or Northern Siberia. Whom shall we follow?223

In 1935, the new High Commissioner, Sir Shenton Thomas, gained the consent of the rulers of Pahang, Kelantan and Terengganu to name the park King George V National Park, in commemoration of the 25th jubilee celebrations of the British monarch, a keen hunter.224 The Colonial Office was relieved that the Malayan authorities had finally gone some way to assuage their critics in the UK.225 Although the Colonial Office endorsed the designation of the park in 1936, there was a long delay in sorting out the administrative and legal provisions.226 The National Parks Enactment was passed separately by the three States and their respective rulers appointed joint trustees, with the Chief Game Warden as ex officio member. However, by the time the park was formally inauguration in 1939 Malaya had lost the race to set up the first national park in Asia. In 1936, the 306,000 ha Kutai National Park, in East Kalimantan, was approved by the Sultan.227 The same year, the United Provinces in India, through the joint initiative of Corbett and the SPFE, established Hailey National Park, renamed in 1957 Corbett National Park.228 In 1938, following close on the heels of India, Ceylon upgraded the Wilpattu sanctuary to a national park. 229 The Peninsula had, all the same, provided an alternative lead by publishing a Wild Life Commission Report. As the Viceroy, Lord Willingdon (1931–36) commented, the existing laws in India were tailored primarily for forest protection so that the Malayan effort served as a model for wider legislation in the subcontinent, in line with ‘modern standards of conservation’.230 The King George V National Park was the product largely of the tenacity of one man, Hubback. Nonetheless, his uncompromising personality and his reputation, even among his close friends, as a tactless wildlife ‘fanatic’,231 continued to pose a problem for the government. It forced Comyn-Platt to make the painful decision to recommend his termination as Honorary Adviser for Wild Life in the very interests of bringing to fruition the cause he had so energetically promoted. The SPFE representative claimed that although he had gone out to

KWells_book_2.fm Page 216 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

•

216

Malaya ‘with a distinct prejudice in favour of Hubback’, in the end he was persuaded that game preservation could never be put on a satisfactory footing so long as Hubback remained.232 The Colonial Office’s view following Wilson’s visit, that Hubback’s real usefulness had finished with the Report of the Wild Life Commission, influenced its subsequent decision to dispense with his services in the interests of seeking a compromise between agricultural and wildlife protection.233 Hubback’s unrivalled knowledge of wildlife and his supreme dedication to nature protection were widely acknowledged in the Peninsula and abroad but counted for little in the context of interpersonal relations and the multifaceted interests within government.234 In January 1937 Captain A.T.A. Ritchie was appointed salaried Game Warden for the centralized administration of wildlife under an independent Game Department. Richie’s 13-year experience in the Game Department of Kenya was of little help in the moist tropics. He left 15 months later, having brought little of the fresh and impartial observations expected of him and was replaced, at the end of 1938, by E.O. Shebbeare.235 The building of the park headquarters, sited at Kuala Tahan, within the original Gunung Tahan Reserve, was completed during the same year, and a Superintendent, G.R. Leonard, appointed.236 Apart from meeting the principal objective of preserving fauna and flora, the park administration made rapid progress towards providing visitor facilities for small parties interested in observation and photography.237 Capturing the wild on camera – for which Hubback and other ex-hunters set the trend in Malaya – was gaining popularity as a substitute for blood sport. Despite the difficulty of access, there was evidence of interest in the park’s facilities among Europeans as well as a growing number of Asians.238 The wildlife controversy exposed conflicting perceptions of forests and wildlife and deep-seated divisions within the administration. The problem was compounded by the bureaucratic subordination of the scientific to the administrative civil service and restraints on criticism of official policy by government servants. The Federal Council, nominally the sounding board for public opinion on policy, was too preoccupied with sectarian and communal interests to lead the conservation debate. This left the English-language press a free hand in drawing public attention away from an ailing economy and socio-political ferment towards nature appreciation for enhancing quality of life and fostering national unity. The press made a strong case for transcending material values (see pp. 154–155). The Malay Mail reminded that national consciousness should rise above short-term profit motives and treated with contempt Fermor’s view that mining should take precedence over other interests.239 [T]hose who are engaged in spheres of activity other than those of exploitation, those who are endeavouring to build up a Malayan national consciousness and tradition will view the prospect with justifiable alarm.240

Well before the wildlife protection campaign, nature appreciation was manifested in the formation, in 1921, of the Singapore Natural History Society under the

KWells_book_2.fm Page 217 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Linking Nature and Nation

•

217

17. Gunung Tahan from 1,500 m (T.C. Whitmore)

patronage of Guillemard. As well as providing a forum for amateur naturalists through discussion and field excursions, the Society produced the short-lived publications, the Singapore Naturalist (1922–25) and the Malayan Naturalist (1928).241 Brought to a close by the subsequent economic downturn, amateur enthusiasm for nature awaited the formation, in 1940, of the Malayan Nature Society.242 Though not committed initially to conservation and conceived as an amateur rather than a specialist organization, the Society, like the King George V National Park, signalled the emergence of nature appreciation as popular culture. The inauguration of the National Park, preceding the political consolidation of British rule under a single administrative umbrella, was a significant milestone in Malaya’s coming of age. Symbolic of a shared heritage, it offered a common identity for a culturally disparate society at a time of rising communal and nationalistic consciousness. The Japanese Occupation (1942–45) disrupted the nascent conservation movement but, paradoxically, reiterated the value of forests to Malayan life. NOTES 1 2 3 4

Quoted in V.W. Ryves, Negeri Sembilan, July 1929, in ‘Game Preservation in Malaya’, No. 29, CO 717/62/4. Worster, Nature’s Economy, pp. 179–187. Thomas, Man and the Natural World, Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1983, p. 188. Lowe, ‘Conservation in perspective’, pp. 340–341; T. Hubback, Pahang, 4 Jan. 1932, to Sir George Penny, London, No. 92308, CO 717/89/7.

KWells_book_2.fm Page 218 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

•

218

See T. Harper, The End of Empire and the Making of Malaya, Cambridge: CUP, 1999, pp. 27– 35; Roff, The Origins of Malay Nationalism, pp. 208–110; 242–247, 256. Means, Malaysian Politics, pp. 22–23, 31–32, 38–39. See Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘Human impact on large mammal populations in Peninsular Malaysia’, pp. 215–220. The Malay prefix ‘si’ is used as a patronizing or diminutive term of affection for persons and animals, especially in folktales. It is likely that the name seladang derives from the attraction of the gaur to ladang (swidden). Anon, [‘Pelandok’], ‘Seladang hunting in Pahang’, Malayan Forester, 7, ii (1938) p. 63; ‘Some notes about seladang’, Selangor Journal, I, No. 24, 10 Aug. 1893, p. 383; C.H. Wharton, ‘Man, fire and wild cattle in Southeast Asia’, in Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, Annotated Proceedings No. 8 (1968) pp. 147–148; H.H.Banks, ‘Hunting seladang in Malaya’, Pt III, British Malaya, 9, viii (1934) pp. 163–164; Pt. IV, 9, ix (1935) p. 195. H.J. Kitchener, ‘The bleak future for the seladang or Malayan gaur’, in J. Wyatt-Smith and P. R. Wycherley (eds), Nature Conservation in Western Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: Malayan Nature Society, 1961, p. 198. Burns (ed.) Journal of J.W.W. Birch, p. 101. Rathborne, Camping and Tramping, p. 154. For gaur and other big mammals sighted in Selangor in 1878, see W.T. Hornaday, ‘Account of a naturalist’s visit to the territory of Selangor’, JSBRAS, 3 (1878) pp. 124–131. See R. Olivier, ‘On the Ecology of the Asian Elephant, Elephas maximas Linn.: With particular reference to Malaya and Sri Lanka’, Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge University, 1978, pp. 258–266. P.F. Burgess, ‘Some elephant & tiger shooting experiences’, Malayan Forester, 17 (1954) p. 67. Foenander joined the Malayan Forest Service in 1920 as a Ranger, worked largely in Pahang and, in 1946, became Senior Asst Conservator of Forests. E.C. Foenander, ‘Elephant hunting in Pahang’, Malayan Forester, 8, i (1939) p. 59. R. Olivier, ‘Reconciling elephant conservation and development in Asia: Ecological basis and possible approaches’, in Tropical Ecology and Development (ed.) J.I. Furtado, Proceedings of the Vth International Symposium of Tropical Ecology, 16–21 April 1979, Kuala Lumpur: International Society for Tropical Ecology, 1980, p. 317. Mohd Khan Momin Khan, ‘Movements of a herd of elephants in the upper Perak area’, Malayan Nature Journal (MNJ), 20 (1967) p. 21. Schebesta, Among the Forest Dwarfs of Malaya, pp. 42–45; Carey, Orang Asli, p. 30; D.D. Daly, ‘Survey and explorations in the native states of the Malay Peninsula, 1875–82’, Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society, 4 (New Series), 1882, p. 407; W.E. Stevens, ‘The conservation of wildlife in West Malaysia’, Seremban, Malaysia: Office of the Game Department, 1968, pp. 54–57, 59, 61, 72. The groups involved here were the Semang and the Temiar. Though the former were traditionally hunter-gatherers, Malays employed them to cultivate hill paddy, taking advantage of their exemption from the government ban on shifting cultiva-tion. Evans, ‘Notes on the aboriginal inhabitants of Ijok in the District of Selama, Perak’, p. 188. W. Hornaday, The Experiences of a Hunter and Naturalist in the Malay Peninsula and Borneo (Intro. G.M. Gullick), [Originally published as Two Years in the Jungle, Pts 3 and 4, New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1885], Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1993, p. 38. J.M. Gullick, ‘Selangor 1876–1882: The Bloomfield Douglas Diary’, JMBRAS, 48, ii (1975) pp. 30, 45. ‘What Malaya is Saying’, British Malaya, 11, iii (1936) p. 73. See Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘Human impact on large mammal populations in Peninsular Malaysia’, pp. 215–248. Anon, ‘Some notes about seladang’, p. 383. See p. 38. L. Oliphant, Narrative of the Earl of Elgin’s Mission to China and Japan in the years 1857, 1858 and 1859, New York: Augustus M. Kelly, 1859, vol. I, p. 28. Burgess, ‘Some elephant & tiger shooting experiences’, pp. 67–68. Report of the Wild Life Commission, II, p. 219. Rathborne, Camping and Tramping in Malaya, pp. 45, 93. ‘Notes of the day’, Malay Mail, 5 Jan. 1931.

KWells_book_2.fm Page 219 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Linking Nature and Nation

•

219

29 ‘Shooting in Selangor’, Selangor Journal, I, No. 6, 2 Dec. 1892, p. 90. 30 The indigenous method of elephant trapping was by digging pitfalls or suspending a wooden spear over a game track. Also used by the Orang Asli of Selangor were spring-traps (pelantek or belantek) constructed with bamboo and wood. T. Hubback, Elephant and Seladang Hunting in the Federated Malay States, London: Ward, 1905, p. 20. 31 H.C. Syers, ‘Shooting in Selangor’, British Malaya, 7, ix (1932) pp. 201–202. 32 Report of the Wild Life Commission, II, p. 211. 33 Ibid., p. 212. 34 Gullick, ‘Selangor, 1876–1882’, p. 46. 35 For an account of the movement in the early modern period in Britain against cruelty to animals, see Thomas, Man and the Natural World, pp. 175–188. 36 J. Mackenzie, The Empire of Nature: Hunting, Conservation and British Imperialism, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988. p. 283. 37 Oliphant, Narrative of the Earl of Elgin’s Mission to China and Japan, vol. I, p. 24. 38 Hornaday, The Experiences of a Hunter and Naturalist, pp. xviii, ix, 11, 38, 150. 39 J. Mackenzie, ‘Chivalry, social Darwinism and ritualized killing: The hunting ethos in Central Africa up to 1914’, in Anderson and Grove (eds), Conservation in Africa: People, Politics and Practice, p. 41. 40 ‘The Late Captain Syers’, Selangor Journal, V, No. 23, 23 July 1897, p. 372. 41 [‘Palia Dorai’], ‘Hunting experiences in Malaya’, British Malaya, 9, v (1934) p. 92. 42 T. Hubback, ‘Sport: The hunting of big game’, in Wright and Cartwright (eds), Twentieth Century Impressions of Malaya, p. 165. 43 ‘Some Notes about Seladang’, p. 382. 44 Foenander, ‘Elephant hunting’, p. 59; ‘Tengku Kudin’ referred to here is, probably, the Penghulu of Gali, Pahang, mentioned in Gopinath, A History of Pahang, p. 207. 45 Foenander, ‘Elephant hunting in Pahang’, p. 59; E.C. Foenander, Big Game of Malaya, London: Batchworth, 1952, p. 114. 46 ‘Mukna’: an elephant without tusks. 47 Burgess, ‘Some elephant & tiger shooting experiences’, p. 64. 48 Hornaday, The Experiences of a Hunter and Naturalist, p. 31. 49 A.H. Fetherstonhaugh, ‘Elephant memories’, Malayan Forester, 15, i (1952) pp. 13, 14. 50 F.O.B. Dennys, ‘Tigers and buffaloes’, British Malaya, 1, v (1926) p. 143. 51 F.O.B. Dennys, ‘A strange jungle bag’, British Malaya, 5, i (1930) p. 17. 52 Syers, ‘Shooting in Selangor’, pp. 201–202. 53 Maxwell, In Malay Forests, p. 21. 54 Fetherstonhaugh, ‘Elephant memories’, pp. 13–14. 55 Apart from the trade in plumage, export of scientific specimens from the Peninsula to Europe goes back to at least the eighteenth century, as evident in the materials from Melaka reportedly used by Carl Linnaeus and G.A. Scopoli. F.N. Chasen, A Handlist of Malaysian Birds, Bulletin of the Raffles Museum, Singapore, No. 11, 1935, p. 8. 56 Maharaja Abu Bakar (r. 1862–95), succeeded his father Temenggung Ibrahaim. See p. 38. 57 H.C. Robinson, The Birds of the Malay Peninsula, vol. I, London: H.F. & G. Witherby, 1927, pp. xvi–xvii. 58 Report of the Wild Life Commission, I, p. 15. 59 R. Cribb, ‘Birds of paradise and environmental politics in colonial Indonesia, 1890–31’, in Boomgaard, et al. (eds), Paper Landscapes, pp. 383–396. 60 ‘Products on State Lands’, Enactment IV of 1896, Pahang Laws, 1889–97, pp. 64–67. 61 In the Peninsula, hunting codes and laws were determined with an eye to bagging the largest trophies from mature male elephants and deer. The new ‘Wild Animals and Birds Enactment’ aimed at replenishing stock by protecting females and immatures. See Enactment No.11 of 1911, F.M.S. Enactments 1911, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1912, pp. 32–35. 62 Gazette Notification No. 46, 15 Nov. 1911, No. 2692, vol., III, Enactment No. 9 of 1911, FMS Enactments 1911, Clause 13, p. 35. 63 Ibid., Clause 14. Though no explicit privilege was granted to the Orang Asli in the Gunung Tahan Reserve, those resident in the Kerau and Serting Reserves were exempted from the ban

KWells_book_2.fm Page 220 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

64 65

66 67 68

69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

86 87 88

•

220

on the use of firearms and other hunting implements. ‘An Enactment to provide for the dedication and administration of certain land in Pahang as part of the King George V National Park’, Enactment 2 of 1939, Federated Malay States Enactments, 1939, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1940, section 15 clause (c). Only later were aboriginal rights to shoot certain wild animas and birds categorically acknowledged under ‘The Protection of Birds and Wild Life Act, 1972 (Act 76) section 52. Rathborne, Camping and Tramping in Malaya, p. 157. ‘An Enactment for the protection of certain kinds of Wild Animals and Birds’, Enactment No. 18 of 1921, FMS Enactments 1921, p. 130. To alleviate the effects of the 1921 Enactment, in 1925 Hubback introduced a ban on all hunting (except by Orang Asli) within the Sungai Lui Reserve, and on the shooting of Javan rhino in the whole of Lower Perak, west of the Perak River. Gazette Notification, No. 5382, 21 Aug. 1925, No. 17, vol. XVII; Gazette Notification, No. 5683, 4 Sept.. 1925, No. 18., vol. XVII, FMS Enactments 1925, pp. 374–375. T. Hubback, ‘The Malayan gaur or seladang’, Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 40, i (1938) pp. 11–12; [‘Pelandok’], Seladang hunting in Pahang’, p. 63; Maxwell, In Malay Forests, p. 71. Lord Medway, ‘Game statistics for Malaya: 1960–63’, Malayan Nature Journal, 19 (1965) pp. 224–225. C.W. Loch, ‘Rhinoceros sondaicus; The Javan or Lesser One-horned Rhinoceros and its geographical distribution’, JMBRAS, 15, ii (1937) pp. 35–36; Lord Medway, The Wild Mammals of Malaya (Peninsula Malaya) and Singapore, Kuala Lumpur: OUP, (Second edition, 1979) Revised, 1983, p. 103. Maxwell, In Malay Forests, pp.10–11; Loch, ‘Rhinoceros sondaicus’, pp. 137–138. Loch, ‘Rhinoceros sondaicus’, p. 135. Ibid., pp. 139–140. Loch, ‘Rhinoceros sondiacus’, pp.139–140. Stevens was in error in speculating that Hubback may have personally shot the last of the species. See Stevens, ‘The conservation of wildlife in West Malaysia’, p. 103. Lim Teck Gee, Peasants and their Agricultural Economy, pp. 49–65. See J. Drabble, Rubber in Malaya, 1876–1922, Kuala Lumpur, OUP, 1973, Appendix C, p. 215; Aiken and Leigh, Vanishing Rain Forests, p. 55. Memo, C.F. Green, British Resident, Pahang, 25 Nov. 1929, Encl., H.C. Scott to Lord Passfield, 5 Jan. 1930, No. 8, CO 717/69/3. The plant was used also as green manure by the Dutch in Java. G. Maxwell, ‘Big game and planters’, British Malaya, 2, viii (1927) pp. 197–201 Report of the Wild Life Commission, I, p. 19. Ibid., III, pp. 330–331. Ibid., I, p. 67. Ibid., I, p. 54. Kemp gained his hunting experience while serving in the Survey Department of the Siamese Government. Upon retirement he moved to Malaya. See p. 170. Robinson’s concern was reflected in his proposal in 1927 for a large mammal survey to be conducted in the Peninsula, headed by Hubback. Hubback, Memo, ‘Game preservation in Malaya’, No. 29, CO 717/62/4. For a short biography based on personal knowledge of Hubback, see J.M. Gullick and G. Hawkins, ‘Theodore Hubback’, Malayan Pioneers, Singapore: Eastern Universities Press, 1958, pp. 78–85. An example of his aggressive and abrasive personality was brought to public attention in 1918 when, as plantation manager in Selangor, he fell out with J.W.C. Ellis, an officer in the Labour Department, culminating in the latter’s suicide. See J. M. Gullick, A History of Kuala Lumpur, 1857–1939, Kuala Lumpur: MBRAS, Monograph 29, 2000, pp. 236–237. ‘Preservation of game’, Memo. Hubback, 16 April 1928, CO 717/62/4, No. 29. Similar views were espoused by European preservationists who saw Africans ‘as another native species’ afforded protection in national parks. See Neumann, ‘Ways of seeing Africa’, p. 154. Enactment No. 18 of 1921, pp. 119–137. Annual Report of the Game Department, Malayan Union, 1947, P/M 1.

KWells_book_2.fm Page 221 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Linking Nature and Nation

•

221

89 Enactment No. 18 of 1921, pp. 119–133. In Kelantan, some State Lands set aside as ‘Forest Reserves’ were excluded from logging and were effectively Protection Forests. Others declared in 1929 as ‘Game Reserves’ prevented alienation but did not preclude hunting. E. Bridgewater, Legal Adviser and Judicial Commissioner, Kelantan, Report of the Hubback Commission, I, p. 263. In the case of peacocks, the large pre-war Japanese population that prized their feathers and relished their meat employed local Malays to shoot them. R. A. Terry, Government Surveyor, Kuala Terengganu, Report of the Hubback Commission, II, p. 273. 90 H.B. Ellerton, DO, Kuala Kangsar to Secretary to Resident, Perak, 9 Oct. 1912, No. 1 and a transliteration of the letter from the Raja Muda to the DO, DF, 660/12. 91 Loch, ‘Rhinoceros sondaicus’, p. 139. 92 [T. Hubback], ‘Letter … to the Chairman of the Fauna Society on the preservation of the fauna of Malaya’, JSPFE (New Series) Pt 4 (1924) pp. 62–63. 93 In the absence in the Netherlands Indies of a special department or officer for wildlife conservation, the 1931 meeting of the Congress of the Association of Higher Forestry Officials proposed supervision of game in government forests by the Forestry Department. The provision was incorporated into the 1932 Decree on Nature Monuments and Nature Reserves. C.H.M.H. Kies, ‘Nature Protection in the Netherlands Indies’, in Nature Protection in the Netherlands Indies, a translation from ‘Supplement to Contribution No. 10 of the Nederlandsche Commissie voor Internationale Naaturebescherming’. Special Publication of the American Committee for International Wild Life Protection, No. 8, 1936, p. 20. 94 C. Mitchell, Zoological Society, London, to W.G.A. Ormbsy-Gore, 3 Nov. 1925, CO 717/5/ 20852. 95 Mackenzie, The Empire of Nature, pp. 202–203, 211. 96 Ibid., p. 289. 97 Mitchell to Ormsby-Gore, 3 Nov. 1925; Memo, Ormsby-Gore, 12 Dec. 1925, CO 717/5/ 20854. 98 Hubback, Letter to the Chairman of the Fauna Society, pp. 60–61. 99 Ibid. 100 Ormsby-Gore, Far Eastern Department, 10 Nov. 1925, CO 717/5/110. 101 Ormsby-Gore to Guillemard, FMS, 30 April 1925, CO 717/5/238; Extract from the report by Ormsby-Gore on his visit to Malaya, Ceylon and Java, 1928, Command 3235, CO 717/96/1. 102 William Keer, Harbour Master and Asst Superintendent, Customs, Tumpat, Report of the Hubback Commission, II, p. 264; Mat Amin Omar, Hulu Terengganu, II, p. 278. 103 Hubback to the Chairman of the Fauna Society, pp. 62–63; T. Hubback, ‘Conservation of Malayan Fauna’, JSPFE, 4 (1926) pp. 35–36; Report of the Wild Life Commission, I, pp. 15, 21– 27. It was not until 1956 that Kedah and Perlis legislated for the protection of wildlife. 104 Hubback, 10 Nov. 1932, to T. Campbell, M.P., No. 92308, CO 717/89/7; Annual Report of the Game Department, Malayan Union, 1947, P/M 1. 105 Founded in 1907, the Rubber Growers Association had its headquarters in London. With more than half its members from the Malay States and the rest from the Netherlands Indies and Ceylon, it operated a powerful lobby in London. Barlow, The Natural Rubber Industry, p. 57. 106 Letter, E.P. Kemp, Singapore Free Press, Feb. 1928. Quoted Hubback, No. 8 in G. 802/1928, CO 717/62/4. 107 Hubback, Royal Society’s Club, London, to W.D. Ellis, Colonial Office, 30 Dec. 1929, No. 8, CO 717/ 62/4. 108 ‘Preservation of Game’, Memo, Hubback, 28 July 1928, No. 29, CO 717/62/4. 109 Report of the Wild Life Commission, II, p. 76. 110 Hubback to A. Caldecott, Bournemouth, 12 April 1933, CO 717/96/1. 111 Hubback, ‘Sunlaws’, Pahang, to E. Campbell, M.P., London, 10 Nov. 1932, No. 9238, CO 717/ 89/7. 112 Hubback, ‘Game preservation in Malaya’, n.d., No. 8, CO 7171/62/4. 113 Extract from the Report of W.G.A. Ormsby-Gore on a visit to Malaya, Ceylon and Java during 1928, Command 3235, CO 717/96/1. 114 Chairman, RGA to the Under-Secretary of State, 7 Nov. 1932, CO 717/89/7. 115 High Commissioner, Kuala Lumpur, to Colonial Office, 9 Feb. 1929, No. 86, CO 717/62/4.

KWells_book_2.fm Page 222 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

•

222

116 D. Pieters, ‘Something about elephants in Sumatra’, in Nature Protection in the Netherlands Indies, Compiled by the Section on Nature Protection, Government Botanic Gardens, Buitenzorg: Department of Economic Affairs, Batavia, 1936, p. 53. During the 1920s elephant herds in the Peninsula averaged 6–15 members but appear to have been reduced in size, probably by forest fragmentation, to about 8–10 elephants, or fewer. Maxwell,‘Big game and planters’, p. 198; Medway, ‘Game statistics for Malaya’, p. 233–234. See pp. 289–290. 117 Hubback, Pahang, to Chief Secretary, 3 Sept. 1929, CO 717/62/4. 118 I.N.H. Evans, Acting Director of Museums, Kuala Lumpur, to the Under-Secretary F.M.S., copy to Under-Secretary Colonial Office, 26 July 1929, No. 62310, CO 717/62/4. 119 Evans to High Commissioner, Encl. 512, High Commissioner to Passfield, 28 Aug. 1929, No. 512, CO 717/62/4; D.F. Green, Resident, Pahang, 25 Dec. 1929; Encl. No. 8, in High Commissioner to Colonial Office, 5 Jan., CO 717/69/3. 120 See PFC FMS, 6 Nov. 1929, p. B161. 121 Memo, J.A.W. Simmons, British Resident, Negeri Sembilan, 16 Dec.1929, Encl. in H.C. Scott to Lord Passfield, 5 Jan. 1930, No. 8, CO 717/69/3. 122 T. Comyn-Platt, ‘A report on fauna preservation in Malaya’, JSPFE, 30 (1937) p. 49. 123 Memo, C.F. Green, British Resident Pahang, 25 Nov. 1929, Encl. in No.8, H.C. Scott to Passfield, CO 717/69/3. 124 Kies and K.N.I.L., ‘Nature Protection in the Netherlands Indies’, p. 14. 125 P. Boomgaard, ‘Protection de la nature en Indonésie pendant la fin de la période coloniale (1889–1949)’, in J. Pouchepadass (ed.), Colonisations et Environnement, Paris: Société Française d’Histoire d’Outre-Mer, 80, i (1993) p. 320. 126 Founded in 1925, the NCIN had paved the way for the formation in 1928 of the International Bureau of Nature Conservation, a joint Belgian-Dutch-French initiative. P. Jepson, and R. J. Whittaker, ‘Histories of protected areas: Internationalisation of conservationist values and their adoption in the Netherlands Indies (Indonesia)’, Environment and History, 8 (2002) pp. 140–141. 127 Kies and K.N.I.L. ‘Introduction’, Nature Protection in the Netherlands Indies, pp. 5–7. 128 Ibid., pp. 19–21. 129 Guillemard, 28 Aug. 1929, No. 512, CO 717/62/4. 130 Cubitt, Memo, 7 March 1930, Encl. in C.W. Hobley, Acting Secretary, SPFE, to UnderSecretary, Colonial Office, 12 March 1930, CO 717/69/3. 131 J.P. Mead, ‘Preservation of Wild Life in Malaya’, Document sent to the Commissioners, Report of the Wild Life Commission, I, p. 416; J.P. Mead to J.S. Smith, 9 Oct. 1930, DF 333/30, No. 5; ‘A Game Warden’s View’, Report of the Wild Life Commission, I, p. 195. 132 Cubitt, Memo, 7 March 1930, Encl. in C.W. Hobley, Acting Secretary, SPFE, to UnderSecretary Colonial Office, 12 March 1913, CO 717/69/3. 133 C.W. Hobley, ‘The conservation of wild life’, Pt I, JSPFE 32 (1937) p. 41. 134 Cubitt, Dorset, to Mead, 5 Feb. 1930, DF 330/30, No. 1. 135 In a report to the Wild Life Commission, C. Jackson, Dy Game Warden, Selangor, wrote: ‘I am of the opinion that Forest Rangers themselves are the chief culprits where poaching is concerned’. Report of the Wild Life Commission, I, p. 138. This allegation led to an investigation by the Forestry Adviser into gun possession among forest staff and the purposes for which they were used. It transpired that, apart from a few who were officially equipped, the rest carried private shotguns for self-protection. Most claimed that they rarely, or only sometimes used their guns, while a number admitted hunting pelanduk, sambar, barking deer and game birds for the pot. Conservator of Forests to SFOs, 6 Jan. 1931; SFO, Perak South, 27 Jan. 1931; SFO, Perak North, 30 Jan. 1931; SFO, Pahang West, 28 Jan. 1931; SFO, Pahang East, 2 March 1931; SFO, Selangor, 4 Feb 1931, DF 333/30. 136 Hubback to Chief Secretary, FMS, 3 Sept 1929, No. 512, CO 717/62/4; High Commissioner to Passfield, Colonial Office, 28 Aug. 1929, No. 512, CO 717/62/4. 137 Onslow to Passfield, 5 Dec. 1929, Colonial Office, No. 597, CO 717/62/4. 138 See Dammerman, Preservation of Wild Life and Nature Reserves in the Netherlands Indies, pp. 6–7. 139 Extract from Sir Cecil Clementi’s Report on his visit to Batavia, Encl. 2: ‘Memo concerning export of orang-utan from the Netherlands Indies and importation and transit at Singapore’, in Clementi to Passfield, 14 March 1930, No. 72378, CO 717/72/11. In 1927 some 100 live

KWells_book_2.fm Page 223 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Linking Nature and Nation

140 141

142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170

•

223

orang-utan from the Netherlands Indies were estimated to have been exported. Boomgaard, ‘Oriental nature, its friends and its enemies’, p, 281. Kies, ‘Nature Protection in the Netherlands Indies’, p. 17; Boomgaard, ‘Protection de la nature’, p. 322; Dammerman, Preservation of Wild Life…, pp. 69–81. Extract from Sir Cecil Clementi’s Report on his visit to Batavia, Encl. 2: ‘Memo concerning export of orang-utan from the Netherlands Indies and importation and transit at Singapore’; Encl. 3: Memo by C.W. Dawson, 25 Aug. 1930, ‘Prohibition of orang-utan into SS and FMS’, No. 72378, CO 717/72/11. The sambar deer, however, continued to be unprotected. J.S. Arter, PFC FMS, 30 Jan. 1929, p. B23. See also the Wild Animals and Bird’s Protection Amendment Bill, 1931, Enactment No. 9 of 1931. Parliamentary Debates, House of Lords, ‘Preservation of wild fauna’, 21 Nov. 1929, Hansard, 75, p. 643. C.W. Hobley, Acting Secretary, SPFE, to the Under-Secretary, Colonial Office, 2 Sept. 1929, No. 62310, CO 717/62/4. The British initiative was backed by the Dutch, Belgian and French Committees for Nature Conservation and the Boone & Crockett Club, USA. Jepson and Whittaker, ‘Histories of protected areas’, pp. 139–140. In fact, not until the 1950s were national parks constituted in Uganda. Mackenzie, Empire of Nature, pp. 274–275. Parliamentary Debates, House of Lords, ‘Preservation of wild fauna’, pp. 627–630. For a full report on the debate, see ‘Preservation of wild fauna’, 21 Nov. 1929, Hansard, 75, pp. 625–660. Parliamentary Debates, House of Lords, ‘Preservation of wild fauna’, p. 646. Onslow to Passfield, 5 Dec. 1929, No. 597, CO 717/62/4. Of the 4 Wildlife Reserves created between 1933 and 1937 in Johor, the Segamat Wildlife Sanctuary was considered to be best suited for the proposed second national park but was never made one. Straits Times, 7 Nov. 1933. This decision was announced by Lord Passfield following the ‘Preservation of wild fauna’ debate in the House of Lords. Passfield to FMS, 6 March 1930, CO 717/69/3. Colonial Office Memo, 28 March 1930, CO 717/69/3. Wild Life Commission of Malaya: Report of the Wild Life Commission – Recommendations, Singapore: Government Printing Press (1932) 3 vols. Hubback to Clementi, High Commissioner, 14 July 1941, Copy to Sir George Penny, M.P., London, No. 82352, CO 717/78/13 These included the Times of Malaya, Straits Times, Sunday Times (the Sunday edition of Straits Times), Malayan Daily Express, Malaya Tribune and Malay Mail. Editorial, ‘A matter that must be watched’, Times of Malaya, 5 Dec. 1930. ‘Animals which spread disease: Biologist’s evidence at wild life inquiry’, Daily Express, 3 Feb. 1931. ‘Sportsman’, Times of Malaya, 28 Jan. 1930. Editorial, ‘A matter that must be watched’, Times of Malaya, 5 Dec. 1930. Report of the Wild Life Commission, II, pp. 219, 250–251. Ibid., p. 83. At the same time, the Malayan jungle film, ‘Bring ‘em back alive’, made by Captain Frank Buck, a noted wild-animal trapper, was screened at the Tivoli in London. British Malaya, 7, v (1932) p. 109. Report of the Wild Life Commission, II, p. 211. Hubback, London, to T. Drummond Shiels, House of Commons, 21 Dec. 1929, No. 62310, CO 717/62/4. Ahmad Tahir, Bujang, Kedah; Ismail H. Mohd Jaffar, Harbour Master Kedah, Report of the Wild Life Commission, II, pp. 439–450. Abdul Hamid Hassan, Asst DO, Pasir Mas, Kelantan, Ibid., p. 261. Ahmad H. Yacob, Ibid., p. 89. Mohd Ashurudin Ahmad, Bagan Datoh, Perak, Ibid., p. 211.

KWells_book_2.fm Page 224 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

•

224

171 Omar H. Ahmad, Hulu Kelawang, Negeri Sembilan, Report of the Wild Life Commission, II, p. 135. 172 Abdullah Panglima Muda, Jelebu, Report of the Wild Life Commission, II, p. 135. 173 In the case of the sambar, most popularly hunted by the Malays, the withdrawal of control in 1929 is alleged to have led to a rampage, facilitated by night shooting with the use of lamps. Hubback, Pahang, to Chief Secretary FMS, 1 Sept. 1929, Encl. in No. 62310, CO 717/62/4. According to the report of the wildlife enthusiast, Ryves, in Negeri Sembilan, ‘Gangs of Malays are out hunting day in and day out, combing every bit of jungle and slaughtering everything that comes their way’. V.W. Ryves, Letter to the Editor, Malay Mail, 10 Oct. 1929. 174 Emerson, Malaysia, p. 508. 175 ‘Game preservation in Malaya’, Memo, Hubback, n.d., No. 8, CO 717/62/4; ‘Malaya’s Wild life: National Park of 900, 000 acres’, Malay Mail, 16 Jan. 1931. 176 Malay Mail, ‘Big game in Malaya’, 26 Sept. 1930. 177 Editorial, ‘The wild life report’, Straits Times, 15 Aug. 1932; Editorial, ‘Wild life proposals’, 19 Aug. 1932. 178 Straits Times, 4 Oct. 1929. 179 Editorial, ‘Sanctuary for wild life’, Straits Times, 27 Aug. 1931. 180 Mackenzie, Empire of Nature, pp. 289–290, 294 n. 61. 181 Editorial, ‘Sanctuary for the wild’, Straits Times, 27 Aug. 1931. 182 T. Hubback, ‘Stories of a Malayan jungle’, Sunday Times, 22 May 1932; 29 May 1932; 5 June 1932; 12 June 1932; 19 June 1932. 183 ‘Will Malaya have the first national park in Asia?’ Straits Times, 25 Aug. 1931. 184 I.H.N. Evans to the Under-Secretary FMS, 26 July 1929, No. 519, CO 717/62/4. 185 Curiously, the early national parks in the Asia-Pacific region, namely, the Royal National Park, Australia (1885), and the Tongariro National Park, New Zealand (1895) were not cited by Hubback as models for emulation. 186 For an insight into H.G. Wells’s deep concern over human degradation of the planet and commitment to conservation see H.G.Wells, J. Huxley and G.P. Wells, The Science of Life, Chapter 6, London: Cassell & Co, 1938. 187 Gullick and Hawkins, ‘Theodore Hubback’, p. 82. 188 V.W. Ryves, Negeri Sembilan, to the Editor of ‘Field’, July 1929, Memo, ‘Game preservation in Malaya’, No. 29. CO 717/62/4. 189 Emerson, Malaysia, pp. 190–191. 190 Ibid., pp. 314–335. 191 Wilson, Memo to Secretary of State, 3 May 1933, CO 717/96/1. 192 Emerson, Malaysia, p. 325. 193 Hubback to E.T. Campbell, House of Commons, 15 Sept. 1932, CO 171/ 89/7. 194 Hubback to Penny, 4 Jan. 1932, CO 717/89/7. 195 Straits Times, 2 Dec. 1932; Hubback to Campbell, 1 Feb. 1933, CO 717/96/1. 196 Hubback, Royal Society Club, St. James Street, London, to T. Drummond Shields, M. P., 21 Dec. 1929, No. 62310, CO 717/62/4; ‘Game in the F.M.S.: Chief Warden’s Report’, Malay Mail, 14 Feb. 1938. 197 Editorial, ‘Wild life’, Straits Times, 11 March 1933. 198 ‘Question of heavy fines for infringement’, Straits Times, 31 Jan. 1935; Captain Ahmad Mohd, Report of the Wild Life Commission, II, p. 76. 199 ‘Game protection in Pahang’, Malaya Tribune, 27 Oct. 1934. 200 Editorial, ‘A priceless possession’, Straits Times, 7 April 1934. 201 For the radical Malay writer and intellectual Ishak Haji Muhammad, however, the National Park was further evidence of colonial aggrandizement. See pp. 246–247. 202 Hubback, ‘Wild life’, Pt I, Straits Times, 26 Oct. 1934. 203 Ibid. 204 Editorial, ‘The National Park of Malaya’, Malay Mail, 19 Aug. 1932; Editorial, ‘Wild life’, Straits Times, 22 May 1936. 205 Wilson to E.T. Campbell, 26 April 1933, CO 717/62/4.

KWells_book_2.fm Page 225 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Linking Nature and Nation 206 207 208 209 210

211 212 213

214 215

216

217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229

230

•

225

Memo, Wilson to Clementi, 20 June 1933, CO 717/62/4. Hubback to Campbell, 1 Jan. 1933, CO 717/62/4. Emerson, Malaysia, pp. 314–335. Editorial, ‘A Malay University’, Straits Times, 2 Feb. 1932; Roff, The Origins of Malay Nationalism, p. 145 Roff, The Origins of Malay Nationalism, pp. 138–139. A national Agricultural School was founded in 1931 in Serdang, near Kuala Lumpur. The Ilmu Tanam2an (Agricultural Science) published by A. Keir in 1939, included a section on Malayan forests. Acting Principal, Sultan Idris College, Tanjung Malim, to Adviser on Forestry, 1 Sept. 1939, No. 69, CF 150/32. Emerson, Malaysia, pp. 313–314; Means, Malaysian Politics, pp. 22–23, 30–31. T.D. Shaw, Minutes, 6 Jan. 1931, No. 7310, CO 717/69/3. Lord Onslow, for instance, acknowledged that Hubback had devoted the whole of his life and a considerable amount of his money to the cause of fauna preservation. But even the Chairman of the SPFE agreed that Hubback’s ideas were ‘somewhat large and many of them impractical’. Onslow to Malcolm MacDonald, 24 July 1935, No. 51514. CO 717/109/9. Jepson and Whittaker, ‘Histories of protected areas’, p. 142. India sent an observer to the Conference. Its resolutions provided the frame of reference for the historic wildlife conference convened in Delhi by the United Game Preservation Society headed by the legendary hunter-turned-conservationist, Jim Corbett. Mackenzie, Empire of Nature, pp. 216, 287–288. Like the Preparatory Committee for the African Convention, the proposed Inter-Departmental Committee was to be represented by the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, the India Office, the Dominion Office, the Economic Advisory Council, the British Natural History Museum, the Zoological Society of London and the SPFE. The ambitious plan was interrupted by the outbreak of World War II. Both the composition of the committee and its brief betrayed the economic concerns that influenced Colonial Office support for wildlife and nature conservation. ‘Protection of the Fauna and Flora of Asia’. F. Hammond, Economic Advisory Council, to R.A. Vernon, Colonial Office, 22 June 1934, Colonies, Original Correspondence, CO 323/1272/1; I. Pearson, Minute, 24 March 1949, Colonial Office, Africa, Original Correspondence, CO 847/ 41/3. Mackenzie, Empire of Nature, pp. 216–217; 270–271. Comyn-Platt, ‘Report of fauna preservation in Malaya’, p. 47. Editorial, ‘Wild life’, Straits Times, 22 May 1936; Editorial, ‘The Preservation of wild life’, Malay Mail, 30 Dec. 1936. ‘Big game in Malaya’, Malay Mail, 26 Sept. 1930; Editorial, ‘A priceless possession’, Straits Times, 7 April 1934. Comyn-Platt, ‘Report of fauna preservation in Malaya’, p. 51. Sunday Mail, 21 Aug. 1937. ‘Wild life, gold and national parks’, Hubback to Editor, Times of Malaya, 8 Dec. 1930. Malcolm MacDonald to Lord Onslow, 26 Oct. 1935, No. 51514, CO 717/109/9; Editorial, ‘A wild life refuge’, Straits Times, 9 May 1935. G.C.E. Gent, ‘Preservation of wild life’, 14 June 1935, No. 51514, CO 717/109/9. ‘Wild life in Malaya: Questions asked in the House of Commons’, Straits Times, 15 May 1936; Anon, ‘Review’ of T. Hubback, Principles of Wild Life Conservation, London, 1937, JSPFE, 31 (1937) p. 79. H. Brookfield, L. Potter and Y. Byron, In Place of the Forest: Environmental and SocioEconomic Transformation in Borneo and the Eastern Malay Peninsula, Tokyo: The United Nations University Press, 1995, p. 80. Collins et al., Conservation Atlas, p. 135; Mackenzie, Empire of Nature, p. 289. Mackenzie, Empire of Nature, pp. 281–282. As a result of early initiatives, by 1936 there was a total of 93 nature reserves in the Netherlands Indies but none excluded commercial felling and subsistence extraction by the peasantry. Boomgaard, ‘Protection de la nature’, p. 323; Nature Protection in the Netherlands Indies, Compiled by the Section on Nature Protection, Government Botanic Gardens, Buitenzorg, pp. 60–66. Anon (1937), ‘Review of T. Hubback, Principles of Wild Life Conservation’, p. 79.

KWells_book_2.fm Page 226 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:07 PM

Nature and Nation

•

226

231 Mr. Page, a lawyer in Singapore and a keen sportsman, had a similar opinion of Hubback. Memo, Sir Samuel Wilson, 3 May 1933, to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, CO 717/ 96/1. 232 Comyn-Platt to Onslow, 16 July 1936, 16 July 1936, CO 717/116/6. 233 Memo,16 Jan. 1934, CO 717/96/1. 234 Editorial, ‘Dropping the pilot’, Straits Times, 9 Nov. 1936; Editorial, ‘The life that makes us wild’, Straits Times, 25 Feb. 1937. 235 Editorial, ‘A second chance’, Straits Times, 2 May 1938; ‘An expensive expert’, Straits Times, 27 May 1938; Editorial, ‘Captain Ritchie’, Straits Times, 15 July 1938. 236 Annual Report of the Game Department, FMS, 1938, JSPFE, 38 (1939) p. 33. 237 A.H. Fetherstonhaugh, ‘Malaya’s national park’, Oryx, 1(1950) pp. 198–199. 238 E.O. Shebbeare, ‘Malaysia’s national park’, JSPFE, 53 (1946) p. 42. 239 See Fermor, Report Upon the Mining Industry of Malaya, p. 217. 240 Editorial, ‘Sir Lewis Fermor’s Report’, Malay Mail, 5 Sept. 1939. 241 H.S. Barlow, ‘A contribution towards a history of MNS: Before our foundation’, Malayan Naturalist, 54, i (2000) pp. 19–20. 242 A.T. Edgar and E.O. Shebbeare, ‘The Malayan Nature Society, 1940–1961’, in Wyatt-Smith and Wycherley (eds), Nature Conservation in Western Malaysia, p. 11.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 227 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

PART IV

Forest Use and Abuse, 1942–69

KWells_book_3.fm Page 228 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

KWells_book_3.fm Page 229 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

CHAPTER EIGHT

The Seminal Years of Forest Politics, 1942–56 It is an ill wind that blows nobody any good … and what rich appreciation of the qualities of the ‘jungle’ or the ‘[h]ulu’ has the Emergency not brought to many thousands of the young men of Malaya? – H.B. Gilliland.1

he ‘back-to-nature’ experience during the Japanese Occupation (1942– 45), and the Communist insurgency that followed, brought home to people the value of the forest as resource and refuge. At the same time, the spirit of self-reliance that the climate of political and economic insecurity bred was manifested in a ‘free-for-all attitude’ to forest resource use. Responsible to a large degree for the breakdown in forest management were the arbitrary and irregular practices of the Japanese Imperial Army in cahoots with private enterprise. These trends foreshadowed the post-war penetration of the timber industry by politically-linked big business. Yet the assertion by the Japanese scientific service of its professional integrity attested to the evolution of transnational science overriding politics. The restoration of British rule, complicated by the Communist insurgency, introduced a two-pronged programme of reconstruction. This involved, first, the reclamation of the forests from squatters and insurgents and, second, the renovation of the timber industry to service an expanding export market. Forest policies regarding these issues were potentially significant in the light of Malay political awakening and the resurgence of Chinese economic pre-eminence.

T

FORE STS FOR THE WAR

Japanese military expansion in Southeast Asia had its origins in the nation’s industrial expansion during the inter-war period. The Meji government’s endeavours to develop a central banking system under the aegis of the Bank of Japan went a long way towards capital formation. Family silk farms expanded and a textile industry flourished, with rising exports.2 Commercial, industrial and service-based zaibatsu (financial groups), such as Mitsui and Mitsubishi, grew out of the devolution of doomed government businesses and entered manufacturing, with official protection, patronage and subsidies.3 Nonetheless, Japan’s enlightened programme of reforestation and development of hydroelectric power during the 1920s failed to keep pace with industrialization and expansion in rail

KWells_book_3.fm Page 230 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

230

networks and shipping. This made access to alternate sources of fuel and iron critical. Particularly following the 1929 economic collapse, the government adopted a more interventionist role and the Japanese economic enterprise thrust southwards, in search of markets and raw materials.4 It was the quest for natural resources that fuelled the Japanese imperial advance into Manchuria in 1931. As the historian Yasukichi Yasuba has argued: Since military buildup and the resultant expansion of heavy industries tremendously increased demand for natural resources, the previously nonexistent shortage of natural resources eventually became real … .5

During the same period, the penetration of powerful zaibatsu activities into Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula for aluminium and bauxite mining, and into Borneo for timber and forest produce was watched apprehensively by colonial powers. Ishihara Sangyo Kaiun Co Ltd. succeeded in acquiring bauxite mines in Batu Pahat, Johor, but a 1938 application by Nomura Mining for bauxite exploration was rejected on the grounds of security.6 Japanese entrepreneurial activity, curbed by British protectionism, fuelled the economic objectives of war and Japanese big business became the rear guard of the new imperial advance.7 Designs for the ‘Southern Occupied Territories’ put a value on Peninsular timber beyond the immediate war effort.8 However, Japanese military rule in Malaya, following the fall of Singapore on 15 February 1942, departed from the British concept of employing forestry as an agent for territorial control. The Military Administration (Gunseikanbu), having no coordinated administrative policy, left forest administration to the whim of military governors and their patronage of private business. In incorporating Malaya within its Southern Military Command, Japan hoped to put forest resources within the reach of its business and industrial enterprise for the war effort. Timber figured in the priority list of resources from the Peninsula, along with rubber, tin, bauxite and iron ore, vital for the military effort. But relative to other activities such as mining, manufacturing and trading, investment in forestry was small.9 The low figure for Japanese investment in forestry in the Peninsula may be attributed partly to the military administration’s plans for inheriting the reputedly well-managed British forest service and its infrastructure.10 The entire pre-war management system, including the laws, enactments and administrative layout remained intact. But an acute shortage of material and managerial resources and a general decline in the ethics and standards of governance threw forest administration into chaos, particularly when the wood industry was thrust into an unexpected position of strategic prominence. In laying out the Main Principles for Economic Measures in the Southern Areas (Nanpo Keizai Taisaku Yoko), the military’s No. 6 Committee of the Planning Board (Kikaku-in Dai 6 Iinkai) stated its intention of limiting manufacturing to shipbuilding, largely in Burma, and the repair of parts and equipment. This meant that although Japan had long shifted from fossil fuel to

KWells_book_3.fm Page 231 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

The Seminal Years of Forest Politics, 1942–56

•

231

hydroelectric power, achieving a savings on natural resources,11 it had little incentive to introduce the same technology transfer in the occupied areas endowed with rich tropical forests. By mid-1943, however, when disruption and damage to shipping interrupted the flow of Japanese exports to the region, the demand intensified for wood for the purpose of fuelling local manufacturing to meet self-sufficiency in necessities.12 In the Peninsula, the forest service, working in conjunction with the Chinese coal and wood producers, was expected to help realize the domestic and industrial ambitions of the Japanese, the latter represented by a 43 per cent investment target for manufacturing and 33 per cent for mining.13 The disruption of shipping which undermined Japanese plans for absorbing regional rubber and tin supplies had other implications for the domestic economy. A virtual collapse of these industries in the Peninsula forced many employed in the related sectors to resort to food cultivation, invading accessible forest land. This trend became more pronounced as the war progressed and the conventional lines of rice imports from Thailand and Burma were severely damaged. The price of rice, fixed at $7 per pikul (60.4 kg) in 1942, rose spectacularly on the black-market to $480 in 1944.14 The ‘Grow More Food’ campaign initiated by the British at the imminence of war was reiterated by the military administration. The British drive had included orders to plant ‘as much dry rice as possible’,15 with Forest Reserves and Malay Reserves opened up, setting aside considerations of soil impoverishment and siltation.16 Emulating the colonial administration’s war effort, the Japanese military administration offered agricultural expertise, new techniques and seed strains for boosting rice supplies.17 Malay rubber smallholders who were hard hit switched to paddy cultivation. Retreat to the forest by the out-of-work and the hungry during World War I and the Great Depression was re-enacted on an unprecedented scale. In Selangor, one of the States most affected by food shortage, Malay settlement was encouraged in Tanjung Karang. With the aim of inducing urban populations to settle in rural areas, various communal land schemes were set up, including one in Endau (Johor) for the Chinese and another in Bahau (Negeri Sembilan) for Catholics and Eurasians.18 As former rubber and mining land was relatively poor, vast swaths of high forest gave way to mosaics of cassava, sweet potato and maize plantings. Food growing, which reached a feverish pitch in Selangor with a large urban population to feed, soon became a Peninsula-wide phenomenon. Over a period of 3 years and 8 months covering the Japanese Occupation, an estimated 51,000 ha of accessible Forest Reserve, and an even larger area of State Land Forest, was cleared for food production. The extensive scrub generated by widespread swiddening and failed Japanese agricultural schemes contributed to an upsurge of scrub typhus.19 In view of the military administration’s over-stretched resources and the overlapping interests of land administration, agriculture and forestry, forest

KWells_book_3.fm Page 232 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

232

administration was amalgamated under the newly formed Norin Ka (Agriculture, Forestry, and Irrigation Department), a branch of the Department of Commerce and Industry. Forestry was directly administered by a Forestry Sub-Chief (Shinrin Kacho) but, instead of enjoying greater cooperation with the other sectors, was marginalized in the interests of agriculture. The situation was not helped by the general lack of professional and technical expertise. The retention of the Eurasian foresters, V.L. Bain, E.C. Foenander and M.I. O’Hara, and the swift promotion of Malays to senior positions hardly made up for loss of staff and expertise. Even maintaining the day-to-day running of State Forest Departments became increasingly burdensome. In February 1942, the Selangor Forest Department was reorganized and placed under a Japanese officer with no professional qualification, and who simultaneously headed the Irrigation and Agriculture Departments and the Rubber Research Institute. In September of the same year Bain was appointed SFO, Selangor, with the brief to set up the food campaign in the State, hardest hit by the shortage. Later, Metani, the Forestry Sub-Chief, was succeeded by a trained forester, Y. Tsugi. He reputedly ‘appreciated Malayan forestry’ but, preoccupied at the Norin Ka, entrusted forest work to K. Kobu, a man with only a Ranger’s training. At various times there were other Japanese officers attached to the Forest Branch. An entomologist, Kayashima who was briefly in charge, lacked authority and local experience.20 Forestry lost out almost completely when, in February 1944, Kofune, a professional accountant, took charge as head of Norin Ka. Under his administration large areas of Reserved Forests, including a part of the valuable camphor forest on the Kancing ridge, were stripped for rice cultivation.21 Fear of the Japanese provided Chinese an additional incentive to seek the sanctuary of forest clearances, which they diligently cultivated and stocked with pigs and poultry.22 These forest exiles were in time seduced into providing vital supplies for the burgeoning Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA), about 7,000 strong.23 What began as subsistence cultivation soon expanded into commercial production, with the conversion of freshly felled forests for rapid and high returns, reminiscent of nineteenth-century pioneer enterprise. The alarming rate of forest clearance drew a warning from the Malay Mail (New Order) about the ideal conditions it set for the breeding of malariacarrying anopheline mosquitoes.24 The press also stressed the wide-ranging impact of the removal of tree cover, reportedly observed in the higher temperatures experienced in Kuala Lumpur and widespread erosion in Berincang, the prime residential area in the Cameron Highlands.25 THE JAPA NESE INDUST R IAL T HR UST

The dislocation of forest management under the Japanese was symptomatic of an era of general administrative chaos, resulting from lack of coordination between Japanese military and technical personnel. It starkly contrasted with

KWells_book_3.fm Page 233 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

The Seminal Years of Forest Politics, 1942–56

•

233

the enormous strides that forestry had already made in Japan. The modern Japanese Forest Agency (Sanrinkyoku), established in the 1880s, was founded on a programme of large-scale reforestation in the late eighteenth century. 26 As one writer in the Malay Mail commented, ‘I feel sure that Nippon forest experts who are among the most highly qualified in the world will shed tears when they arrive in Malaya and see large acreages of excellent forests cut down and burnt without discrimination’.27 Amidst the general inefficiency and disorganization prevalent under military rule, the Japanese image was ameliorated, in part, by the efforts of individual scientists who endeavoured to lend a semblance of continuity to scientific initiatives. Outstanding among them was Marquis Yashichika Tokugawa. The 22part History of Forestry in Kiso (Kiso Rinseishi) that he later completed marked the culmination of spectacular advances made in Japanese forest science in the decade preceding the war.28 By virtue of his social standing and knowledge of the region, the Marquis was appointed Supreme Adviser and political confidant to Colonel Watanabe Wataru, head of the military government. During the prewar thrust of Japanese interest in Southeast Asia, he had established a close acquaintance with Sultan Ibrahim of Johor by virtue of their shared passion for hunting. The Marquis’s scientific interests in the region were attested by his participation, as part of a team of 23 Japanese scientists headed by Takeo Kato, at the 4th Pacific Science Congress, held in 1929 at Batavia and Bandung. At this seminal meeting, where regional cooperation on conservation was discussed for the first time,29 he made the acquaintance of many eminent botanists and zoologists. The Marquis was an obvious choice for the post of President of the Raffles Museum and the Botanic Gardens (1942–44). Complementing his nomination, the Science Council in Japan appointed Y. Haneda and the plant physiologist, Kwan Koriba as Directors of the Gardens and the Museum, respectively. 30 The Marquis rose above the constraints of the politics of war to seek the collaboration of several interned scientists for research and curation. Among them was R.E. Holttum and his assistant, the eminent Cambridge botanist, E.J.H. Corner. The former continued as Director of the Botanic Gardens for ten months before Koriba took charge. Among the Japanese scientists within the Marquis’s fold was the quaint and indefatigable freelancer, Hidezo Tanakadate, a vulcanologist from Tohoku Imperial University, Sendai. An unsung hero, he was described as a man ‘on the side of nature and science’. He was responsible for single-handedly rescuing the Museum and Gardens from ruin before the arrival of the Marquis. Tanakadate, in common with many Japanese scientists of his generation, worked under the inspiration of Emperor Hirohito, an amateur biologist and a Fellow of the Linnean Society. Believing that ‘science was international, not to be sullied by war’, Tanakadate did not hesitate to use his acquaintance with General Yamashita Tomoyuki with whom he had been at university.31 The importance of science in Japanese political thinking was attested

KWells_book_3.fm Page 234 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

234

in General Tojo Hideki’s orders that the contents of museums, libraries and all scientific collections should be preserved as national heritage.32 Tanakadate personally pledged to conserve cultural institutions, a commitment he made good with reference to the FRI, of which he was put in charge by the Marquis.33 He arrived in Kepong to find that the Museum had been looted. Of the large collection of herbarium specimens, only a fraction remained and this he duly rescued. Committed to the philosophy that research efforts and scientific endeavour should not be obstructed by war, he arranged with the Japanese government for the publication of C.F. Symington’s ‘Foresters’ Manual of Dipterocarps’ at his own expense. The manuscript had already been set up for printing with Caxton Press, Kuala Lumpur, but as the manager, Charles Grenier, was interned at the Changi Military Camp, Singapore, Tanakadate recruited the help of the internees, Corner and H.E. Desch, former Wood Technologist at FRI. 34 As Corner records, ‘Japanese staff officers travelling to-and-fro carried [the manuscripts] personally, while duplicates were kept at the Singapore Botanic Gardens. The co-operation of military officers was possible only because they were personally known to the professors [Koriba and Y. Haneda] as students or colleagues’. Japanese scientific initiative was further evident in the publication by Tadamichi Koga, Director of the Tokyo Zoological Gardens, of M.W.F. Tweedie’s ‘Poisonous Snakes of Malaya’, rescued from the looted premises of the Methodist Publishing House, Singapore.35 The aberrant feature of Anglo-Japanese collaboration in the cause of science during the war cannot be overemphasized. Unfortunately, the initiative shown by individual Japanese scientists was not backed by institutional research. Except for the short spell when Tanakadate and his successors Koriba and Haneda worked in Kepong, FRI was abandoned and no forestry training was conducted for the entire period of the Occupation.36 In the Selangor Forest Department, Tsuji worked with Bain to draw up some fundamental guidelines on forest policy. Though able to deal on an equal footing with the military authorities because of his seniority, the Japanese forester was powerless against the army’s uncompromising policy on opening up forests for agriculture. His Malay-speaking assistant, Kubo, despaired: ‘Kita punya tangan tiada chukup kuat menahan soldier’ [‘We are helpless against the army’]. Tsuji represented the last Japanese official with any serious interest in forestry. In the spirit of the Japanese advance into Southeast Asia, the Gunseikanbu continued to claim Japanese technical and scientific superiority but proved unable to harness such expertise for civil administration. Though it was significant that the army refrained from destroying scientific institutions such as the FRI and the Timber Research Laboratory, these continued to exist in name only. Senior Asian forest officers who remained in service tried to maintain management practices, including silvicultural work, but were hampered by the shortage of facilities. The few Japanese officials with scientific background had no experience of the Malayan forest and, though often amenable to the sug-

KWells_book_3.fm Page 235 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

The Seminal Years of Forest Politics, 1942–56

•

235

gestions of senior Malayan staff, were unable to bring their influence to bear on a contemptuous army.37 Selangor was one of the few States where a modest attempt was made to revive forest administration.38 The 1938 Forest Manual was adopted as a basic tool but scientific management was hampered, as in the other States, by a drastic cut in the budget, equivalent to a seventh of the pre-war allocation. There was, consequently, a chronic shortage of trained staff, labour, equipment and transport. Furthermore, the disappearance of Forest Guards, suspected victims of kidnapping by guerrilla forces, discouraged forest staff from venturing too far into the interior.39 In total, 46 members of the Forest Department lost their lives in service during the Occupation.40 The loss of personnel proved especially serious at a time of increased public encroachment on Reserved Forest for agricultural land and fuel. Forestry was also compromised by the Japanese military’s vested interest in the timber trade. Though forest regulations were nominally in force, they were routinely waived and essential procedures short-circuited to indulge the Japanese army and the contracts and businesses it sponsored.41 Physical danger, financial constraints, mismanagement, corruption and a significant reduction in salaries notwithstanding racing inflation, contributed to a general loss of morale within the service.42 The rising needs of local manufacturing as imports declined, elevated forestry to a position of importance but without the power or the capacity for organizing and regulating production. The heavy demands of the army and navy resulted in over-exploitation, circumventing silivicultural procedures for successful regeneration. 43 The structure of Japanese economic organization introduced a culture of patronage and corruption into which the local populace was ineluctably drawn. Kaisha, or monopoly companies appointed as agents for servicing military requirements were backed by the Yokohama Specie Bank.44 Like the monopolies for the rice, sugar and salt industries, the inland forests in Perak fell into the hands of Nomura Toindo Shokusan Kabushiki Kaisha for timber; Toyo Kozan Kaisha for firewood to service the tin industry; and Nippon Seitetsu Kabushiki Kaisha for charcoal production for the iron industry at Ayer Kuning. Mitsui Bussan Kabushiki Kaisha (MBKK) assumed monopoly over the exploitation of Perak’s mangrove forests, covering some 39,000 ha.45 The extraction of NTFP, including rattan, bamboo and damar was contracted to Namihara Shokai and other small Japanese companies.46 The Chinese lost their place in big business and were left with only the ground operation of the timber industry. With access to labour, they acted as agents for the Japanese companies. To reduce competition and regulate and control prices, they were organized into kumiai or syndicates.47 Using its monopoly over mangrove resources, MBKK established a firm grip on the charcoal production. It set up the Perak Central Mangrove Cooperative ( Mokutan Hanbai Kumiai) and organized the Charcoal Sellers Association into which every important Chinese merchant in the State was recruited. 48 A major part of

KWells_book_3.fm Page 236 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

236

Perak’s mangrove output, which some 200 charcoal kilns processed, was absorbed by MBKK for iron smelting in Penang, and by Nihon Seitetsu for steel manufacturing in Taiping.49 As of June 1943, Forestry in Perak came under the overall authority of Nomura, its headquarters strategically located in Ipoh, at the heart of the timber industry in Kinta.50 In Kinta, Larut and the Dindings timber exploitation and agricultural conversion were mutually supportive and prime reserves came under intense felling.51 Over-exploitation and inadequate investment in regeneration invited the criticism of Foenander, SFO Lower Perak, that such practices ‘would never be tolerated in Japan where one of the finest Forest Estates exist, … managed by a very fine staff of trained men’.52 The Forest Department became, effectively, an agent of Nomura. Both company staff and members of the Japanese civil and military administration are alleged to have given orders for felling any timber they or their friends wished to have.53 The hard line adopted against the Chinese drove many into the arms of the MPAJA-led guerrilla movement. Living as squatters on the forest fringe, they combined timber cutting with tin mining and food cultivation.54 As attacks on Japanese shipping intensified, forcing the military administration to step up industrial production, the earlier policy of prioritizing food production was reversed and severe restraints were placed in Perak on forest conversion for agriculture.55 By May 1944 the timber industry was expanded into a gigantic Peninsular network under Nippon Mokuzai Kabushiki Kaisha (NMKK) as the controlling authority over all contractors. The company, in collusion with Japanese military officials, used the kumiai to corner the market. Forced to supply the Japanese army at controlled prices, the kumiai recouped their losses by selling wood and fuel to the public at black market prices. 56 Unable to keep pace with the heavy exploitation, the forest service in Perak, as elsewhere, no longer supervised felling and restricted its role to collecting royalties. Loggers formed formidable gangs that openly defied forest laws. The virtual collapse of forest administration left forest officers open to intimidation from forest-based entrepreneurs who indiscriminately cut timber, which they delivered for sale by the roadside.57 The SFO, Ali Hassan, was kidnapped and was believed to have been murdered. The same Chinese whose profits from the timber trade propped up the anti-Japanese movement also delivered supplies for replacing coastal ships sunk by British submarines. By the same token, the fluid political situation enabled individuals like Foenander to liase with resistance forces in the jungle.58 Poor road facilities, lack of tramline maintenance and, not least, the loss of about 75–80 per cent of transport vehicles and buffaloes resulted in serious wastage, with the larger and heavier logs generally abandoned. Similarly, Perak’s mangrove wood production, the largest in the Peninsula, was affected by disruption of forest and transport maintenance at a time of rising wood demand to meet domestic manufacturing.59 Moreover, insufficient Japanese techno-

KWells_book_3.fm Page 237 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

The Seminal Years of Forest Politics, 1942–56

•

237

logical input to back industries for processing primary resources resulted in low-efficiency production and fuel wastage.60 By October 1943, when the northern Malay states of Kedah, Terengganu and Kelantan were transferred to Thailand, power slipped away completely from the Forest Department. Effectively, the Japanese remained in control. The overall monopoly, as in Perak, was given to a single company, Nomura Higashi Indo Shakusan, which in turn subcontracted operations to Nomura Toindo Shakusan Kabushiki Kaisha, working with other satellite firms.61 The military governor’s mismanagement, resulting in overlaps in licensing, gave cause for friction. Most companies defied the forest rules. They refused to obtain proper licences or pay royalties and prevented forest staff from inspecting working areas. By 1944, the activities of these companies reached a feverish pitch in response to the big drive to step up shipbuilding for producing tongkang for coastal navigation. The project was backed by an agreement made the same year, in Penang, between the Japanese and Thai governments to fell some 96,000 cu m of timber, annually, in Kedah, Terengganu, Kelantan and Pahang.62 In Terengganu the prime forests in Kemaman and Besut were earmarked for supplying Japanese industries including the Nippon Mining Company, the Thai Marine Company and the ambitious boat-building industry. Mokuzai Haikyu Kaisha (Timber Distribution Company), a semi-government authority, was vested with the sole right to buy and sell all timber.63 The 50 per cent royalty payable, and the arbitrary prices for timber delivered put many contractors out of business.64 The forest service became merely a tool for irregular practices including cancellation of existing licences and extension of concession boundaries.65 Forced labour (romusha) was widely used in the timber industry, to reduce dependence on Chinese contractors.66 The only local enterprise that survived Japanese competition was the long-experienced Hin Leong Company in Kemaman.67 In Kelantan, Chinese loggers continued operations in the less accessible upstream areas, driven by the will to eke out a livelihood for themselves and their coolies.68 In Pahang, the Japanese focus on timber and poor enforcement of forest laws opened a window of opportunity for greater Malay participation in NTFP trade, particularly in gum, resin, wax and dyes, to meet the demand for import substitutes. Despite the little overall damage that the forests sustained relative to those on the west coast, some of the choice timber stands were lost.69 Logging on the east coast under the auspices of the Japanese army included ambitious schemes for supplying Singapore with timber to make up for shortfalls in Indonesian imports, affected by shipping disruption. 70 This scheme failed, as did the boat-building industry. In Terengganu, a large number of unseaworthy vessels were abandoned at the three docks at Kemaman, Kerteh and Kuala Terengganu (at Pulau Kambing).71 In Pahang, many newly built tongkang failed to reach the dockyard. Of the few that did, many capsized.72

KWells_book_3.fm Page 238 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

238

At the same time as prime forest was lost to agriculture, such as at Endau in Johor,73 forest mismanagement proved detrimental to paddy cultivation. In Kedah, clearance of hill reserves and concomitant erosion and siltation affected some areas of lowland paddy. Cassava planting in parts of Sungkup Reserve, reputedly bearing some of the richest and finest forests in the Peninsula, contributed to land degradation.74 Equally detrimental to agriculture was unmanaged felling in the Gunung Jerai protection forest to service iron smelting. 75 Towards the end of the war, Chinese industriousness in supplying timber outstripped the Japanese capacity for transportation and utilization. 76 Large quantities of timber, particularly heavy-hardwoods, were abandoned in the forest.77 Mismanagement and lack of coordination between timber felling, transport organization and shipping resulted in huge timber stockpiles in Perak. Both there and in Pahang a large number of logs were abandoned in the forest. 78 Contrastingly, poor distribution in other States such as Kedah resulted in serious fuel shortage, pushing up wood prices to levels described as ‘fabulous’ by the returning British.79 The impotence of the forest service, combined with inflation and poor salaries, contributed to demoralization among staff. Many opted for selfemployment and considered it an opportune time to take advantage of the proMalay Japanese policy to seek business opportunities. In Terengganu, the resumption of Thai control triggered a spate of resignations among forestry staff who sought employment in Japanese timber companies. 80 Those who stayed often moonlighted to the detriment of departmental efficiency. It was alleged that in Pahang, employees, unable to manage on poor salaries, were ‘expected to be corrupt’ and, partly through fear of Chinese guerrillas, rarely did fieldwork. There were exceptions, however. The exemplary services in Pahang of Forest Ranger Hamzah Dahaman and his good relations with Chinese licensees, won the appreciation both of the Japanese and the returning British SFO after the war.81 FOREST REFUGE

The virtual collapse of forest management during the Japanese Occupation had profound political implications. The loss of livelihood by the disruption of trade and industry laid the ground for Communist propaganda and the ideology of resistance among thousands of Chinese settled on the forest fringe. The belukar, thicker on the ground than the jungle interior, provided a safe retreat and a convenient buffer from the Japanese army garrisoned in and around the urban centres. The pre-war kongsi, engaged in timber and NTFP extraction, set the model for forest refugees and guerrillas during the Occupation. Trails previously laid by the Forest Department facilitated movement.82 The No. 5 Independent AntiJapanese Regiment of Perak, for example, established its camp headquarters at the end of a timber path, close to Bersia River, in Temengor. 83 The guerrillas

KWells_book_3.fm Page 239 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

The Seminal Years of Forest Politics, 1942–56

•

239

also took advantage of paths cut by surveyors that, in one instance, ran most of the way along a 50 km route between Pahang and Negeri Sembilan. 84 The forest, stretching down to the road verges, provided easy cover for ambush, 85 as manifested during the Emergency by the assassination, in October 1951, of High Commissioner Sir Henry Gurney along the road to Fraser’s Hill. In the foothills and plains metalled roads and well-laid paths, running between neat rows of rubber trees on the forest edge, facilitated guerrilla links with urban centres of food supply, propaganda and intelligence.86 These conduits of ambiguous loyalties doubled as channels for Japanese counter-resistance through espionage. In Perak, Chinese prostitutes, planted as informants in cassava kongsi, near Ipoh, formed part of the network of vital intelligence.87 A new economic infrastructure came alive, integrating past traditions of commercial interaction with new strategies for survival. Well-entrenched Sinoaboriginal relations took on a political meaning with the outbreak of war. The MPAJA realized that the success of their operations depended on Orang Asli supply lines and intelligence about Japanese troop movements. Orang Asli served as guides and porters and proved excellent trail finders, able to trek through the jungle at remarkable speed.88 Insurgents deliberately cultivated their friendship and won their confidence by protecting them from the attacks of bandits and Japanese troops. Jungle survival bred a shared way of life. The Chinese, in common with the Orang Asli, subsisted on a diet of rice, sweet potatoes, cassava, maize and vegetables, supplemented by fish, venison and pork. The Japanese ban on weapons, combined with the extension of cassava planting by squatters, boosted animal populations, providing abundant game. 89 Well-remembered pre-war experiences of the forest were imaginatively recreated by MPAJA activists to meet the demands of a new order. Ah Ching at Mancis in Bentung, Pahang, was the typical shopkeeper who had hunted pig and deer in the company of Europeans and, on turning insurgent, serviced supply lines to guerrilla camps. His familiarity with Malay jungle lore and his experience of living for some years in the kampung proved indispensable for bridging cultural gaps and ethnic divides.90 Many Malays were drawn into a common ideological fold with the Chinese – a phenomenon ordinarily rare. Again, preexisting Chinese–Orang Asli networks facilitated the dissemination of MPAJA and, later, MCP (Malayan Communist Party) propaganda.91 Within an otherwise harsh and cruel environment were framed codes of justice and welfare in the mutual interests of survival. In contrast to the widespread looting and pillaging in the towns at the beginning and end of the war, the guerrillas maintained a modicum of fair play, paying the Orang Asli for supplies of rice, eggs and poultry.92 The back-to-nature experience revived the pioneer spirit, removing physical barriers and cultural constraints. FORES T S A N D R A D I C A L I S M

Post-war restoration of forest management was challenged by the pressure for land among a rapidly rising population, a situation exacerbated by restricted land

KWells_book_3.fm Page 240 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

240

concessions following the immediate post-war years.93 Illegal occupation became a way of life among thousands who bore a spirit of defiance and independence after the war had exposed British vulnerability. Particularly following the rift between the British and their erstwhile allies, the Communist guerrillas, new political ideologies took root. Communities settled on the forest fringe resisted a return to the old order and potential deprivation of a hard-earned lifestyle. Resumption of forest management was hampered by threats from food cultivators, anxious to clear yet more forest, and the activities of illegal timber fellers and looters operating with hidden machinery in the forest.94 The government’s bid to enforce forest laws, while simultaneously waging a campaign to grow more food, was perceived as unjust and was skilfully exploited by radical propaganda. The free run on reserved land was the most contentious. The rationalization of forest use under post-war British rule created new ethnic tensions as communities pressed their claims on the basis of usufruct. Chinese squatter settlements in Forest Reserves led to Malay concern and complaints in Kedah and Negri Sembilan about damage to paddy cultivation. The government gave every assurance of reinforcing Malay Reservation but risked playing into the hands of leftist elements when squatters were evicted from reserves.95 At the same time, the timber and sawmilling industry drew the squatter unrest into the urban trade-union movement. Civil disobedience, such as that organized by the Perak Citizenship Association against the British Military Administration (BMA), expressed rejection of capitalist economic control in favour of unfettered peasant enterprise and cooperative movements.96 The activities of squatters in Perak were particularly difficult to control once they came under the influence of Communist associations such as the Sago Worker’s Union and the Farmers’ Association.97 Political and other syndicates collected timber dues in the form of donations from contractors, in competition with the government. 98 Radical politics and trade union movements emboldened squatter defiance of the ban against cassava planting and generated social banditry. The uprooting of illegal plantings and the eviction of squatters by government officials incited resentment that the MCP successfully channelled towards jungle-based terrorism, rural violence and labour unrest, culminating in the declaration of Emergency (1948–60).99 Critical to the counter-insurgency was knowledge of the forest. Describing the crash programme in jungle survival for marines, David Young recalled: They learnt … how to follow barely visible trails through undergrowth of tangled thorn and bramble, how to move noiselessly through the trees. With the assistance of the wily Ibans, they learnt to construct bashas of attap to keep out the torrential rainfall, learnt the secret of perpetual silence … . Long hours were spent lying cramped in damp, leech-ridden, mosquito-haunted swamps. Melting into the vegetation at a given signal became an art … .100

Time worn indigenous skills for jungle survival were incorporated into modern military strategy by British forces. Apart from learning to build jungle forts

KWells_book_3.fm Page 241 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

The Seminal Years of Forest Politics, 1942–56

•

241

with bamboo and attap, they learnt the art of surrounding them with bamboo spikes, stuck about 45 cm above ground.101 Traditional hit-and-run tactics and ambush, rather than direct assault, came into their own. To the average British soldier who reputedly found the jungle ‘a worse enemy’ than the bandits, 102 survival rested on reinforcing the old Anglo-Malay camaraderie in jungle exploration and hunting. Recording the cool nerve and common sense of his righthand man, Sergeant Shaffie from Batu Pahat, Roy Follows records: No one was better at steadying the men when morale began to slip in appalling conditions, or when food was running out.

Or, on patrol he would advise: Tuan [Sir], don’t just look at the jungle around you. Try to look through it. Right through the tangle. You will see much further. Sniff the air for the smells of human habitation. Listen for the noises that don’t belong.103

Malays, who enlisted by the thousands in the special constabulary and in the Malay Regiment, assumed a pre-eminent role within the theatre of jungle war. 104 On the side of the insurgents, the attractions of jungle-based resistance were enhanced by political ideology. The inauguration in April 1946 of the Malayan Union, which threatened the special status of the Malays, fanned the flames of nationalism. Inspired by Communist ideology, the familiar drama of resistance in the heartland of Pahang unfolded, reminiscent of the rebellion some 50 years earlier of the legendary Tok Bahaman at Semantan against alleged oppression by the Sultan and his British allies.105 The new 200-strong Communist movement in Pahang, which styled itself the Malayan National Liberation Army (MNLA) 10th Regiment commanded by Abdullah C.D., operated among simple paddy cultivators in north Pahang.106 Its leadership combined the pursuit of Communist ideology with the Malay love of jungle adventure and heroism, associated with culture-specific concepts of magical power and charisma. Wan Ali of Mentakab harnessed for jungle warfare Malay belief in invulnerability, evoked through the supernatural. Where ordinary methods of assault by the army failed to get him, Wan Ali yielded, ultimately, to the perceived efficacy of bullets imprecated by the Sultan’s Malay agents.107 Similarly, a pawang in Negeri Sembilan ostensibly charmed a Malay bandit into leaving the jungle and laying himself open to capture.108 The Communist uprising radically changed the status of the Orang Asli. They moved from a position of relative obscurity into the forefront of ideological conflict, where their material support became crucial for those contesting the jungle war. Entrenched links with the Orang Asli, originating in the Occupation, gave the guerrillas a distinct advantage during the early phase of the Emergency. By the end of 1953, through ‘a judicious blend of friendship and terrorism’, they gained influence over almost the entire hill population, estimated around 30,000. The gravity of the situation demanded a change in British strategy.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 242 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

242

By building jungle forts that sealed off guerrilla influence, the government gained ground and the Orang Asli gradually yielded to counter-propaganda. 109 Generally following the winning side, they traded their service for generous payments of cigarettes, nails and old parachutes, popularly fashioned into garments. The transformation of the Orang Asli from a passive to a potent force during the Emergency won them a place for the first time in the political equation. Ironically, the change came at a time when the land issue, which impinged on Orang Asli claims, was intensely contested. ISSUES OF LAND USE

A fall in the price of rubber and widespread industrial unrest contributed to a scramble for mature forest for shifting cultivation. Within the context of the Emergency, the spread of socialist ideology and rising Malay nationalism, rigorous enforcement of land laws on some half-a-million squatters was considered bad policy.110 Instead, the government made available three-month permits for land already in occupation,111 followed by three-year TOL licences for State Land and permits for taungya cultivation in Forest Reserves. These measures met with defiance from many determined on exercising a free hand in cultivation, while still others used TOL licences for ‘land grabbing’, for purposes of cashcrop cultivation.112 Even those who found urban employment after the war continued to maintain their family base on the forest edge. In some areas, pressure on the more accessible forest fringes pushed cultivation into the hills, resulting in soil loss by erosion.113 Tobacco cultivation, notoriously debilitating of soils, was rampant in Kedah, and in the Upper Perak valley. Shifting cultivation was reported to be actually on the rise in Perak, particularly in the remote Reserves of Korbu and Pelus and in the Keledang and Kinta Hills. In Keruh (Pengkalan Hulu), under conditions of food shortage, the district administration permitted clearings for hill rice on slopes, mostly within Forest Reserves. In Kinta, erosion from slope cultivation, recorded even before the war, had intensified.114 In Johor, some five years after the war, hundreds of hectares of upland remained under pineapple cultivation in defiance of the law.115 Trade recovery spawned new and profitable export industries. Other than pineapple for canning, cassava cultivation fed factories that processed starch for export to the cotton mills of Pakistan and the UK. The waste from the mills was, in turn, utilized for pig rearing to supply urban centres in the vicinity and Singapore. 116 By the mid-1950s, extensive tracts of Imperata grass covered the State. There was also a thriving trade in banana, planted after an initial crop of cassava by the Chinese. Extensive in Negeri Sembilan, Selangor and Pahang, banana was less inimical to soils than cassava or tobacco but retarded forest regeneration all the same.117 Equipped with TOL licences, some combined the cultivation of perennials alongside rubber, in the hope of gaining a permanent title; but many had no vested interest in land beyond returns from a one-off crop and swapped

KWells_book_3.fm Page 243 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

The Seminal Years of Forest Politics, 1942–56

•

243

used plots for fresh land when their TOLs expired. Pioneer attitudes that ‘It is not our land and there is plenty under the jungle,’ still prevailed. Commenting on the effects of shifting cultivation one forester observed, ‘After three years all dormant seed in the forest was exhausted, the vigour of the coppice regrowth from the stumps lost, and the soil usually so poor that woody secondary growth was almost non-existent’.118 Orang Asli shifting cultivation was recognized to be less inimical under ideal conditions119 but was severely restricted by lack of access to sufficient forest land as a consequence, partly, of government-sponsored resettlement during the Emergency. In the Sungai Batang Padang valley in Perak, for example, a community of 720 households was permitted to occupy ‘old clearings’, as legally provided in 1929. Through remaining in the same area, they left an unremitting expanse of bamboo and banana above the 600 m contour.120 The Forest Department’s growing interest in the timber stocks of hill forests, in anticipation of future needs, boded ill for aboriginal communities already dislodged from the lower valleys by land reservation and development. 121 The post-war expansion in the timber industry and pressure on land for agricultural resettlement obliged forestry to withdraw its pre-war policy of promoting ‘sedentary’ shifting cultivation (see p. 181) in favour of the permanent settlement of Orang Asli. The SFO Perak, backed by the Director of Forestry, attempted to confine Orang Asli to old clearings in secondary forest, under threat of arrest.122 However, apart from the difficulty of monitoring their activities and punishing offenders, it was feared that strict enforcement of the policy would force their return to the deep jungle and prejudice counterinsurgency measures Lack of access to primary forest was only one of a number of factors that altered Orang Asli lifestyles. Terrorist harassment during the Emergency forced many to settle closer to rural habitations and urban centres, taking up wage labour or rubber and fruit cultivation. In Pahang, some took voluntarily to paddy cultivation.123 These changes set them on the path of gradual integration with the Malays, encouraged by official policy. In the Hulu Selim and Hulu Behrang regions, in Perak, the Orang Asli had become conversant in Malay and ‘quite at home’ outside their settlements. The prosperity of one headman in Tanjung Malim district, who owned about 20 ha of good rubber and engaged Chinese tappers, was fair evidence of their adaptation.124 Not least, improved market opportunities and the attraction of cash earnings from selling jungle produce at strategic locations reduced mobility. With material wants increasing from exposure to the external world, some sought employment in Chinese-managed illegal logging in Rompin during the Emergency.125 In Kelantan, by the end of the 1950s, Orang Asli communities settled close to timber-logging sites on or near the Nenggiri River, engaged in wage labour and the sale of jungle produce, especially bamboo.126 Despite these signs of adaptations evident within some Orang Asli communities, the fate of the majority hung in the balance.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 244 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

244

Compared with the more dispersed activity of Orang Asli in the highlands, settlement and cultivation by other communities resulted in critical levels of erosion in the Cameron Highlands. Tea estates and vegetable gardens were established on weeded and unterraced hillsides of anything up to a gradient of 45 degrees,127 and existing laws for silt control were vague and difficult to enforce.128 A hydrological study of the Telum, Kial and Bertam catchments, covering a total of 17,000 ha, revealed alarming levels of erosion (Table 4). 129 Table 4: Erosion levels in catchments of the Bertam, Kial and Telum Rivers, Cameron Highlands

Telum

Average Soil Erosion (kg/ ha/year)

Bertam

Kial [sic]

Area in sq km

72

22

78

Jungle

64%

70%

94%

55

Tea

21%

11%

5%

11,004

Vegetable

7%

19%

1%

1,656

Open

8%

–

–

-

The situation in Cameron Highlands highlighted erosion problems in the moist tropics, as distinct from the seasonal climate prevalent, for example, in Ciwudel, about 45 km south of Bandung, Java. Erosion in Bandung during the first year after forest clearance was calculated at 276 kg/ha/year for terraced and 865kg/ha/year for unterraced land, lower than the 1,656 kg/ ha/year for tea terraces in the Cameron Highlands. Given the dramatic increase of erosion resulting from a decrease in humus content, it was calculated that annual sedimentation in the Bertam River would rise over two years from 18.6 million kg to 25.9 million kg.130 In 1950, between 4 and 8 per cent of the land area in the Peninsula was described as ‘degraded’.131 Though the damage often appeared small, the consequences were predicted to be ‘far reaching, cumulative and unquestionably serious’.132 Quite apart from contaminating water supply and silting up irrigation canals in paddy fields and anti-malarial drainage, soil erosion could exacerbate annual floods on the lower reaches of rivers, exposing settlements to epidemics. Clearance during the war of a mere 1–2 ha catchment area in the Bukit Legung Forest Reserve in Selangor, for example, had severely reduced storage in the reservoir servicing Kepong.133 Extensive erosion of steep land, particularly the Cameron Highlands and Bukit Tinggi on the Main Range, prompted the 1951 Hill Lands Bill forbidding alienation of land over 26 degree gradient. 134 To coordinate land alienation with rational land use, Pahang, Perak and Johor formed State Natural Resources Boards during the mid-1950s; but the misuse of already alienated and illegally occupied land remained unresolved.135 Caution over the eviction of squatters even from Forest Reserves136 meant that no

KWells_book_3.fm Page 245 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

The Seminal Years of Forest Politics, 1942–56

•

245

effective brake was put on land degradation. Rather than de-gazette the ‘disquietingly large acreage’ of wasteland, the Forest Department concentrated on reclamation.137 The appointment, for the first time, of a forest ecologist in 1954 marked a further stage in the development of Malayan forestry, moving pari passu with advancing science.138 Regeneration operations, like other aspects of forest management, were hampered by security problems associated with post-war insurgency, budgetary constraints and the high cost of labour. The Malayan Union scheme and the issue of equal citizenship, which sparked inter-racial atrocities in Perak, held up silvicultural work by Malay forest staff.139 Close collaboration between the well-armed MCP and the allied squatter communities created virtually ‘a state without a state’, and it became impossible for an unarmed Malay officer to enforce the law.140 In the aftermath of the Japanese defeat, ‘gangster elements’ and ‘political clubs’ took advantage of the administrative disarray to extort payments by terrorising forest staff and sawmill employees. Forest Guards and Rangers were the victims of terrorist attacks. As part of its programme for disrupting services, the MCP targeted the timber industry in Perak, brutally attacking employees, burning sawmills and lorries and killing haulage buffaloes.141 In Teronoh, in the Kinta Valley, Malay men, women and children were burnt alive. 142 In 1950, six employees of forest licensees were brutally killed. 143 The following year, a further three were murdered and there were 30 serious incidents involving forest staff.144 During the height of the Emergency in the early 1950s, some forest personnel were assigned military duties and the activities of others were seriously curbed.145 Wildlife and park administration was also affected by the war and the Emergency. King George V National Park became the virtual preserve of guerrillas.146 The partial restoration of services in the Park and the return of visitors by the beginning of 1949 were interrupted by the escalation of the Emergency and the danger of travel.147 The creation of jungle forts along the spine of the Main Range drove the MCP, under its leader Chin Peng, to shift its headquarters to Pahang, where most of the park area was located. The National Park’s isolation and neglect during the period of conflict provided, in fact, the best guarantee for fauna protection. Closer to human habitation, wildlife succumbed to the Game Department’s crop protection campaign, precipitated by the upsurge in the mammal population. The combined effects of the Japanese ban on weapons, scrub extension through shifting cultivation and the breakdown in game management had boosted animal numbers. Elephant and seladang went on the rampage in the large and well-populated district of Temerluh.148 Adept at hunting without ammunition, Malays kept deer numbers low, compared with the sharp rise in the number of pigs, excluded from their diet by religious taboo. The abundance of pigs in cultivated areas attracted tigers and provoked extensive shooting by the Game Department.149 The massive killing in 1947 of a record 1,009 pigs, 25 elephants

KWells_book_3.fm Page 246 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

246

and 16 tigers scaled down official culling by 1950 to 441 pigs, 5 elephants and 3 tigers.150 Unrecorded were animals shot in remote villages during the Emergency by armed Home Guards and village guards.151 S O C I A L E N G I N E E R IN G

Important to the future of forests and wildlife was the colonial state’s post-war reinforcement of ethnically based claims to space. Appropriation of vacant land by the Chinese during the war, partly assisted by Japanese-sponsored allotment to non-Malays, continued during the Emergency, raising new concerns. 152 Apropos the Chinese squatter problem the Chief Minister of Negeri Sembilan bluntly stated: These people have made a nuisance of themselves. Why should we give up good Malayan land for occupation by them, when such land is likely to be needed for future expansion by the Malays? 153

Illegal occupation for subsistence cultivation by Chinese, tolerated within the traditional framework of usufruct, gave way to resentment when used as a basis for post-war land acquisition. A group of early nationalists, the Persatuan Melayu Selangor (Selangor Malay Association) described the Malay Reservations as ‘land traps, in which Malays are forced to seek a living, like sheep allowed to eat only the grass inside the pen, while non-Malays, like wild animals, are given complete freedom to take their will outside’.154 Emergent nationalistic sentiments, which gave rise to concerns of external encroachment on the Malay life found expression in literary writings. In Cherita Awang Putat (The Story of Awang Putat), by Abdul Rahim Kajai, capitalism intrudes on Tenong, the idyllic Malay society enjoying peace, tranquillity and a life of natural abundance, its clear rivers full of fish.155 Again, in the allegorical novel, Putera Gunong Tahan (The Prince of Mount Tahan), Ishak Haji Muhammad portrays the colonial government as unscrupulous and avaricious. Educated at the prestigious Malay College at Kuala Kangsar, but ill at ease with the established order, Ishak resigned from the Malay Administrative Service to devote his time to writing.156 Putera Gunong Tahan, first published in 1937 at the height of the National Park campaign, suggests that the rulers’ territorial concessions were seen as the ultimate surrender by the Malays of their sacred rights. 157 The forest realm of the Prince of Mount Tahan encapsulates the exclusive mental and physical world of the Malays. The ways of the jungle are portrayed as morally more advanced and superior to those of the European world. 158 Outside the forest the powerful and corrupting influence of the colonial rulers on the Malay aristocracy had led to decadence and exploitation. Thus, the central figures in the story – an old Malay woman who personifies traditionalism 159 – retreats to the forest to live in harmony with nature, establishing a bondage and reciprocity with the aboriginal people. In return for teaching them about the oneness of God, they impart their knowledge of the magical arts of love-

KWells_book_3.fm Page 247 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

The Seminal Years of Forest Politics, 1942–56

•

247

charms, curses and medicines.160 The forest is the repository of indigenous knowledge and wisdom. European dismissal of forest spirits and primitive magic as false and ‘bunk’ is ascribed to arrogance and ignorance. The jungle people are morally superior and so are their laws.161 The law of the jungle people strongly condemns those who tell lies. Perhaps that is why we are different from city folk. We are more noble than they are, even though they are supposed to be more ‘advanced’.162

The magical Bamboo Telescope and the Talking Banyan Tree in the story are able to penetrate into areas of human affairs in ways which Western technological devices, such as the telescope and radio, cannot.163 European ventures into Gunung Tahan in the name of science are scorned as preposterous intrusions. That Europeans should pursue an interest in botanical research without visible material reward is received with cynicism. It would be ‘very foolish of the Malays to expect the British to put Malay interests before their own’. 164 Those dedicated to exploring Gunung Tahan for the purpose of turning it into a tourist resort for the colonial government’s profit are alleged to be motivated by the ‘hopes of fame, pension, and other sugar-coated bribes’. 165 Such an act, for material ends and without the permission of the Prince of Tahan, sovereign of the forest and guardian of the mountain, is tantamount to transgressing the sanctity of the mountain. Putera Gunong Tahan, in short, may be read as a political comment on the error of Western development. By attempting to strip the indigenous people of their knowledge and beliefs enshrined in the forest, colonial development was ‘[taking] away the only thing that made them happy’. 166 Brought up in Temerluh, in the heart of the Pahang jungles, Ishak recognized in the contrasting Malay and British perceptions of nature conflicting values of life, expressed in belief versus rationality. The novel derives its satirical element from the ‘foolish’ ways of the West, but more than this, conveys an inner tension between Malay and Western systems of epistemology. Putera Gunong Tahan is a poignant expression of the Malay reaction to external intrusions on their physical space, defined by the forest. The cultural values the forest represented had renewed meaning for Malay national identity, and the book was reprinted at Independence in 1957. The undercurrents of Malay anxiety about identity called for a fresh social ordering, reclaiming Malay rural dominance. It meant arresting the free run of Chinese in the rural economy, resentment of which is expressed by the Kesatuan Melayu Muda in Dari Hal Pa’ Menong (1942). In this short story, the hero gets his own back by acquiring a title to the Malay Reserve Land on which the Chinese middleman has been squatting, and then charging him rent.167 The government response to the Chinese squatter problem was resettlement with the aim of removing them from Communist influence and reducing dispersed occupancy and land degradation. The laudable intention of giving the landless a permanent interest in the soil merely resulted in their relegation to squalid spaces within the New Villages.168

KWells_book_3.fm Page 248 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

248

Parallel rehabilitation of the Orang Asli, through bringing them closer to social services such as medical centres and schools, was consistent both with the post-war social policy of the colonial government and Malay nationalistic aspirations for extending the civilizing influence of their community. In 1948, the UMNO Secretary-General proposed the declaration of Aboriginal Reserves on similar lines as Malay Reserves.169 If on account of illiteracy and lack of ability to look after their own interests, reserves have been created for Malays who as a matter of fact are more advanced than the Sakais [Orang Asli], I think that the Sakai cases are more deserving.170

Pragmatism as much as idealism informed new perceptions of the Orang Asli. The breakdown in land administration since the war and progressive land hunger introduced potentially dangerous overlaps in Orang Asli and Malay land claims.171 In the wake of nationalism, the implied conflict between aboriginal rights and Malay claims to privileges as ‘sons of the soil’ contributed to endorsement by the nationalists of the official policy favouring gradual Orang Asli assimilation into Malay society. In the lead-up to Independence, Mohammed Eusoff, Panglima Kinta, Perak, addressed a memorandum to the Reid Commission and the Legislative Council on the plight of the Orang Asli. He spoke of government interest in the Orang Asli only as anthropological specimens, until the Emergency. ‘That the people with the strongest claims to being called the sons of the soil should be reduced to asking simply to be saved from extinction is a tragic comment on the treatment of the most Malayan of Malayans,’ he declared. 172 His views matched those of the Malay nationalist, Onn Ja’afar who reminded that aborigines are human beings and not ‘museum pieces or exhibits’.173 Mohammed Eusoff ’s call for an enlargement of the 1954 Aboriginal Peoples Act,174 which would provide a Department of Aboriginal Affairs for their social, economic and political uplift, heralded a major shift in official policy. The future envisaged for the aborigines was ‘not in fitting them for survival in the jungle and the jungle fringes but in drawing them into the modern society from which they are excluded’.175 The Protector of Aborigines, P.D. R. Williams-Hunt, himself married to a Semai, was similarly keen on Orang Asli social emancipation through education and improved agriculture though, at the same time, he represented their desire to maintain their identity. They ask for protection of their lands, freedom from religious interference of which there is a considerable and growing amount and a gradual development of standards of living and education. 176

To assist the gradual process of change envisaged, the 1954 Aboriginal Peoples Act guaranteed the Orang Asli restricted ‘rights’, as opposed to ‘privileges’, to land occupancy.177 Under Clause 10 (1), any existing laws relating to Forest Reserves could, by order of the Ruler-in-Council, be suspended, allowing resident communities continued occupation.178 Foresters interpreted this provision

KWells_book_3.fm Page 249 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

The Seminal Years of Forest Politics, 1942–56

•

249

to be in conflict with Clause 30 (v) of the 1934 Forest Regulations. 179 The most outspoken critic, Colin Marshall, SFO Perak and, later State Conservator of Forests, Johor, dismissed the 1954 Act as embodying ‘starry eyed idealism’. He blamed Land Officers and the Protector of Aborigines for failing to settle the Orang Asli within designated areas based on a land use plan.180 Richard Noone, Aborigines Adviser and brother of Pat Noone, suggested allowing Orang Asli free reign above the 800 m contour, beyond the timber-rich dipterocarp forest. 181 The proposal was tantamount to driving the Orang Asli into a poorer environment. In any case, alienating the Orang Asli in the face of the Communist threat was not considered good policy.182 In the years that followed, the Forest Department, fast losing out to lowland development, turned to the hill forests only to find the Orang Asli in its way. Several years after independence, a frustrated Director-General of Forestry pressed for a remedy: The matter is urgent since on the one hand the Department is being squeezed from the lowlands up into the hills as a result of rural development, and being repeatedly told by many people in authority that we can always get our productive estate at higher elevations, eg. in [Hulu] Kelantan. And on the other hand we are being squeezed out of existing hill reserves in many parts of Malaya by aborigines…The authorities cannot have it both ways, and an early decision on where we go is imperative.183

Orang Asli claims on the forest remained contested. Although the 1954 Aboriginal Peoples Act allowed for ‘aboriginal reserves’, the few created hardly met the needs of a population estimated, in 1950, to be close to 100,000. 184 Any land claim under Section 10 (1) of the Aboriginal Peoples Act was contingent upon current occupation, thus excluding ancestral lands that had long been incorporated into Forest Reserves. Orang Asli settlement was prejudiced by the reluctance of State governments to sell or grant land to them or to provide proper compensation for areas commandeered.185 They were, at best, ‘tenants at will’. With no proprietary rights, they were dependent on the goodwill of the forest service whose anxiety to entice them into permanent settlements was enshrined in official policy. Foresters realized that the desired transformation could be achieved only by a less radical and slower process than had originally been envisaged. … [I]t should be the ultimate objective to replace the present system of shifting cultivation with some system of permanent agriculture…At the same time it is also accepted that in inducing these groups to adopt a more permanent form of agriculture this should be done without disrupting too suddenly their traditional way of life, and that the process may take a considerable length of time.186 TE CHNICAL RE VOLUTION

In contrast to the government’s Orang Asli policy that remained ‘no more than a broad statement of intention’,187 post-war recovery of forest control and the

KWells_book_3.fm Page 250 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

250

expansion of the timber industry had significant implications for the official policy of Malay socio-economic uplift. Nurturing pioneer Malay enterprise at a time of major technical revolution in the timber industry, consonant with market expansion, presented a serious challenge for the forest service. A further problem was the termination of unitary administration that under the BMA and the 1946 Malayan Union had facilitated rehabilitation. The return to decentralization under the 1948 Federal Constitution renewed forestry’s earlier concerns, as expressed by J.G. Watson.

18. The twentieth-century revolution in logging i. Elephant haulage, Hulu Jeli, Kelantan, 1960s (T.C. Whitmore) ii. Manual haulage in swamp forest, 1963 (Forestry Department, Kuala Lumpur)

KWells_book_3.fm Page 251 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

The Seminal Years of Forest Politics, 1942–56

•

251

Anything less suited than Decentralization to the needs of forestry or more subversive to adequate control of exploitation, utilization or production it would be difficult to imagine.188

The uncertainties that beset the restitution of forest management were offset by the pre-war Malayan experience of the successive heads, Watson (1940, 1942–45) and T.A. Strong (1945–50). In almost complete disarray at the end of the war, the forest service was soon put on its feet. By April 1947, FRI in Kepong reopened

18. The twentieth century revolution in logging (continued) iii. ‘San-tai-wong’ in current use (G. Smith) iv. Tractor haulage in current use (Forestry Department, Kuala Lumpur)

KWells_book_3.fm Page 252 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

252

its full vernacular training course and established an overseas training programme to prepare Malayan foresters for the higher echelons of management.189 A catalyst for the post-war transformation of the timber industry was the advance in science and technology, born of the war. Post-war photographic reconnaissance, with RAF assistance, served as a vital tool for reclaiming political and administrative boundaries and restoring scientific management. Aerial photographs enabled rapid identification of damaged areas such as erosion on the north-eastern slopes of the Main Range in Pahang, subsequently protected by the 1951 Hill Lands Bill. 190 In restoring the timber industry, priority was given to the introduction of new equipment and vehicles. To compensate for the large number of lorries lost and damaged, 2–3-ton army lorries appropriated from the Japanese were fitted with winches for log conveyance. Another change introduced was the use of army tractors to haul timber, replacing the traditional system of buffalo haulage, brought to a halt by the large number of animals slaughtered for meat or lost to disease. Emergency restriction on working hours in the forest and the amount of food carried, which restricted the duration of stay in camping sites, were incentives for mechanization. The crawler tractor was too slow moving to be returned under Emergency regulations to campsites at night. Hence, the versatile six-wheel, three-axle lorry was introduced in 1948. Popularly known as the san-tai-wong, it revolutionized Peninsular logging operations. It hauled, swiftly and cheaply, the 15 m logs generally used by sawmills, and doubled as a ‘bus’ for the daily transport of loggers into the forest.191 Other than replacing buffalo haulage at half the cost and eliminating the need to cut logs at stump site, it enabled two men, including the driver, to move 2 one-ton logs from stump site to the sawmill. 192 These improvements produced an upturn in the timber market in Singapore, notwithstanding interference in the working areas by security forces. There was also a steady expansion in the sawmilling industry as rising wages led to the final phasing out of hand sawing.193 The introduction of locally made band saws, to replace wasteful circular saws increased efficiency and the number of sawmills rose from 71 at the outbreak of the war, to 110 by the end of 1946. 194 Improved technology, the availability of new machinery and the needs of postwar reconstruction in the UK and USA produced a substantial upturn in timber processing. Previously located mainly in Johor and Singapore, the industry became more State based, with some exports handled by Port Swettenham on the west coast.195 In 1949 alone, exports of sawn timber to the UK and Australia rose threefold, foreshadowing rapid expansion in exports.196 Revenue from timber and fuel rose spectacularly from just $230,000 in 1946 to about $5.5 million in 1953, making forestry an important revenue earner. In 1955 there were over 350 sawmills providing labour for an estimated 150,000 persons.197 By 1955, the declaration of White Areas under the Emergency freed up more forest for exploita-

KWells_book_3.fm Page 253 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

The Seminal Years of Forest Politics, 1942–56

•

253

tion198 and, in the same year, 173,963 cu m of sawn hardwoods, worth $26.7 million, were exported. By now, the timber industry, with 373 sawmills, engaging 4,941 people, was a more important employment sector than the tin-smelting industry.199 By the late 1950s weakening Communist resistance, which allowed machinery to be left with greater safety in the forest, lead to a sharp rise in the use of tractors and the building of tractor roads. Tractor logging increased the costeffectiveness of harvesting the less valuable species for which there was now an expanding market.200 This, in combination with the replacement by the 1960s of the traditional axe and handsaw with the chain saw, launched the logging industry into the next cycle of technical transformation.201 ‘Distance and steepness ceased, almost overnight, to restrict the logger’. Under the stimulus of the new wave of rubber and oil palm planting, the logging industry used the opportunity for pre-felling to supply the Japanese market.202 In Pahang, the number of applications for logging exceeded the forest service’s capacity for efficient supervision and control.203 A measure of the rapid pace in the expansion of the timber industry was the opening up of Hulu Kelantan, which together with Terengganu, took advantage of the timber boom.204 Market forces and new technology contributed to silvicultural practices for enhanced regeneration in Reserved Forests that supplied at least half the exports. The demands of post-war reconstruction, high capital investment in machinery and improved wood technology favoured higher yields in a single cut. The new monocyclic, chainsaw felling that replaced polycyclic handsawing under RIF enabled the removal of all saleable trees in a single operation, taking advantage of the emerging market for the light-hardwoods, especially meranti (Shorea).205 Introduced in 1948, the Malayan Uniform System (MUS) was based, curiously, on evidence of unassisted regeneration following clear felling operations during the Japanese Occupation. Fully operational in 1955, MUS aimed at converting natural forest into a more or less even-aged forest and was expected to increase the timber yield fivefold.206 To ensure replacement and enhancement of commercial species, harvesting was regulated to the incidence of sufficient seedlings on the forest floor. Furthermore, by shifting the emphasis away from heavy-hardwoods to light- and medium-hardwoods the system aimed at reducing harvesting cycles to 70 years, from 110–120 years predicted for full regeneration of heavy-hardwoods.207 The inauguration of the new system drew the Peninsular forests into an unprecedented spiral of productivity. MALAY ASPIR ATIONS

In contrast to the negligible role the Malays played in the pre-war timber industry, the Japanese Occupation served as a gestation period for Malay entrepreneurship. They gained useful experience from serving both the Japanese government and the timber companies as trusted administrators, agents and brokers. In addition to those who rose to senior positions previously held by

KWells_book_3.fm Page 254 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

254

Europeans foresters, others were employed in the timber business. Their increased participation in administration, management and business, however brief and modest, instilled a new confidence fostered by Japanese propaganda, and contributed to a sense of national pride. Furthermore, Malay cooperation with the military’s business agencies exposed them to a new culture of state-sponsored monopoly enterprise, in contrast to the free-market policy of the British. Direct personal links between business and government, a distinct feature of the Japanese corporate scene during the war, was readily absorbed into the political culture of the post-colonial era. Symptomatic of rising aspirations among the Malays were the business ambitions of Mohammad Noor Zainudin who raised a capital of $10,000 to form the Kemaman Jungle Products Co. Ltd. In 1946, he applied to the Terengganu Forest Office for a jelutong extraction licence, with hopes of advancing his case as a brother-in-law of the Assistant District Officer at Kemaman. He claimed to have worked before the war for a motor service company in Kuala Kangsar, during which period he had joined the district Malay Association and organized the Chahaya Timor, a Perak Malay daily. During the Japanese Occupation, like many other Malays, he had entered business, working as a subcontractor in jungle products including rattan, tree-barks and timbers. He appealed for government support ‘to rebuild the much battered and bankrupt national economy of the Malays’.208 His application for a licence was supported by his ambitious plans for supplying the Singapore distributor, Messrs Baginda Zakaria, as well as M. Rothschild & Co. Inc. in the USA. Mohammad Noor’s hopes of staking a claim to equitable participation in the economy through tapping into personal influence, in the absence of substantial capital and experience, presaged a new order in the Peninsula’s political economy. The government on its part was keen to revive the trade in NTFP in the interests of exploiting the international demand for jelutong. To avoid inexpert tapping by casual workers, it decided to license only those with an established stake in the industry.209 Typical was the Ng Teong Kiat Factory Ltd., some 30 years in the trade.210 Within a year of reoccupation, 17 old jelutong licences held by Chinese were renewed in Perak alone, besides others in Pahang, Negeri Sembilan and Selangor.211 Mohammad Noor was deemed unqualified; but in deference to the official policy of encouraging Malay participation in the economy, the SFO granted him an experimental six-month licence in the small Jabor area, in Kemaman, leasing the remaining area to the long-established Chinese Mining & Jungle Produce Company.212 In Negeri Sembilan, Towkay Ng Chin Sin and Towkay Yap Kim Swee, between them, received concessions over the entire Palung Forest Reserve, on the Pahang border.213 Given the Chinese dominance in the forest industry, Mohammad Noor’s spirited attempt to gain ‘a fair chance’ spoke of a new determination within the Malay community. 214 Inevitably, Malay interest in the lucrative forest industry entered the political equation. The bid by the Pusat Perekonomian Melayu [Centre for Malay Economic

KWells_book_3.fm Page 255 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

The Seminal Years of Forest Politics, 1942–56

•

255

Affairs], Perak, for Malay economic reform represented a wider nationalistic sentiment that the influential United Malay National Organization (UMNO) championed.215 In response to UMNO pressure for greater Malay participation in development, the Rural Industrial Development Authority (RIDA), a statutory corporation, was established in 1953. Criticism levelled in 1955 in the Perak State Council that government had not provided enough business opportunities for Malays sparked open debate over their aptitude for financial enterprise. Anxious to scotch any support for the Malays that might prejudice non-Malay interests, the Straits Times warned: The good businessman is he who survives the rigours of competition. Conversely a business shield of Government protection is always bad business.216

Brushing aside the warning, the Malay Chamber of Commerce, Perak, made a Peninsula-wide appeal to Malay leadership to initiate specific policies for promoting Malay socio-economic emancipation. Among other proposals, it demanded that, ‘No additional licences, permits or other rights whatsoever be granted to non-Malays’ until the Malays had achieved parity with them.217 The Pahang forester, E.C. Foenander, who was sympathetic to Malay emancipation at grass roots, drew attention to the industrious but cash-strapped Malay loggers caught in the spiral of debt to Chinese sawmillers.218 Contrastingly, Malays made speedier progress in the smaller capital-based and more labourintensive mangrove firewood and charcoal industries. A greater proportion of the potentially more lucrative logging licences issued to Malays, such as those for opening the Temerluh-Maran road, fell into the hands of the Malay rentier class who sub-let to Chinese.219 Malays, such as the Tengku Besar (heir apparent) of Pahang and his son, who operated as ‘sleeping partners’, nearly always employed only Chinese.220 A ruling requiring a minimum 50 per cent Malay employment for preferential licences needed close monitoring to ensure compliance.221 Of particular concern was the marketable value of licences in the timber industry, which encouraged the proliferation of licence-holders beyond the needs of the industry.222 With the socially rooted phenomenon of a Malay rentier class capitalizing on the expansion of the timber industry, it became the government’s responsibility to equip Malays for direct and active participation in the industry. Accordingly, employment of a minimum percentage of Malay labour in sawmills to pick up Chinese ‘know-how’ was made mandatory.223 RIDA, which identified the timber industry as a potential field for pioneer Malay enterprise, sponsored two out of the 34 mills that existed in 1954 in Pahang, as well as others in Muar, Johor. It also assisted in training Malay mechanics as bandsaw operators. In addition to an increase in the number of Malay loggers, some found employment as lorry drivers and winch operators for Chinese licensees.224 To overcome the shortage of Malay capital, cooperatives were formed and government aid provided in the form of improved roads to logging sites.225 In Johor, where the

KWells_book_3.fm Page 256 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

256

jungle – particularly in the east – fast succumbed to the logging industry, their participation increased fourfold, from 18 permit holders pre-war to 74 in 1952, comprising about one-fifth of the licensees and four-fifths of the workforce. 226 From the Forest Department’s point of view, Malay entry into the timber business could not have come at a worse time. Poised at the crossroads of technical change, the department took a less than optimistic view of pioneer Malay participation. Changes in the industry dictated large outlays in capital and machinery. For a start, Malay buffalo haulage could not compete with the rapid conversion by Chinese to mechanical logging. The newly introduced monocyclic MUS system, emphasizing clear felling, put the experienced Chinese at a further advantage.227 The large capital investment in machinery and the reduced selectivity of species under MUS harvesting dictated a guaranteed market for logs at the sawmill, favouring the existing links between the Chinese logging and processing sectors.228 The integrated logging and sawmilling operations under a single management also helped reduce the price of the finished product. 229 For the Forest Department, committed to giving the timber industry its best chance, it was not a question of ‘favouring non-Malays or those who were well-off ’.230 A Federal proposal that Malays and Chinese be assigned separate areas, which was tantamount to cutting out experienced licensees and creating different ethnic blocks, was ruled out as ‘fatal’.231 Launching Malay enterprise into a Chinese domain spelt a long and arduous process. Any undue haste under the euphoria of pending Independence, putting the industry in jeopardy, was prevented by a constitutional guarantee for safeguarding the interests of existing licence holders.232 Ordinarily, to avoid oversupply, Chinese sawmill owners limited Malay log supply to a fixed annual quota.233 Thus, the best guarantee for the Malay to dispose of his logs was through partnership with a Chinese sawmiller.234 Within the climate of covert alliances that dominated the industry, a rumour circulated in Pahang in 1955 that a former Forest Guard, who headed a newly-licensed Malay timber cooperative, had sold out to Chinese. 235 After initial uncertainty over how to address the problem, the Forest Department decided that Malay and national interests would best be served by avoiding artificially fostered Sino-Malay competition.236 The policy tacitly validated asymmetrical, ‘Ali-Baba’ business partnerships, which remained a sensitive socioeconomic issue in Malayan forest management.237 Human-forest relations during the Japanese Occupation and the Emergency contributed in no small part towards preparing the nation for self-determination. For many, forests so often regarded as standing in the way of progress, offered the only means of surviving the ravages of hunger and war. The rigours of jungle life were compensated by the discovery of self-reliance and independence, matched by expanding mental horizons that embraced new ideologies. Materially, the technical innovations of war and the post-war reconstruction worldwide were a boost to the Peninsula’s timber enterprise. The industry entered a period of unprecedented expansion, with far-reaching socio-political implications.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 257 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

The Seminal Years of Forest Politics, 1942–56

•

257

NOTES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23

H.G. Gilliland, ‘Conservation and education’, in Wyatt-Smith and Wycherley (eds), Nature Conservation in Western Malaysia, p. 27. D.K. Das, The Asia Pacific Economy, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1996, p. 78. W. M. Fruin, The Japanese Enterprise System: Comparative Strategies and Cooperative Structures, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992, pp. 90–98. Sugiama Shinya, ‘Introduction’, in Sugiama Shinya and M. Guerrero (eds), International Commercial Rivalry in Southeast Asia in the Interwar Period, Monograph 39, New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asia Studies, 1994, pp. 2–4. See Yasukichi Yasuba, ‘Did Japan ever suffer from a shortage of natural resources before World War II?’ Journal of Economic History, 56, iii (1996), p. 554. Hikita Yasuyuki, ‘Japanese companies’ inroads into Indonesia under Japanese military domination’, in P. Post and E. Touwen-Bouwsma (eds), Japan, Indonesia and the War: Myths and Realities, BKI, 152, iv (1996) pp. 663, 665. Yasuyuki, ‘Japanese companies’ inroads’, pp. 660–661, 671. Yoji Akashi, ‘The Watanabe Gunsei in Occupied Malaya and Singapore, 1941–43’. Paper presented at the 14th Conference of the International Association of the Historians of Asia, 21–24 May 1996, Bangkok. n.p. See Table 1. Estimated assets of Japanese private companies outside Japan proper (30-1-1948), in Hikita Yasuyuki, ‘Japanese companies’ inroads’, p. 678. Compared with Japan’s manufacturing, mining, shipping and plantation agriculture, investment in forestry amounted to only 0.36 per cent, as against 4.6 per cent in Indonesia. See Table 2: Investments of Japanese Companies in Southeast Asia during the Pacific War, Yasuyuki, ‘Japanese companies’ inroads’, pp. 679–680; Shibata Yoshimasa, ‘The monetary policy in the Netherlands East Indies under the Japanese administration’, in Post and Touwen-Bouwsma (eds), Japan, Indonesia and the War: Myths and Realities, Table 6, Loans of the Southern Development Bank … 1942, p. 722; Loans of the Southern Development Bank … 1943, p. 724. Yasuba, ‘Did Japan ever suffer from a shortage of natural resources?’, p. 553. Ysuyuki, ‘Japanese companies’ inroads’, pp. 660–661. Ibid., p. 659 P. Kratoska, ‘The post-1945 food shortage in British Malaya’, JMBRAS, 19, i (1988) p. 27. Minutes by the High Commissioner, Singapore, 10 Sept. 1939, Ad. F 29/42. J. G. Watson, Adviser to Forestry, 12 Sept. 1939. Memo, V.J. Cowgill, British Resident, Negeri Sembilan, 14 Feb. 1941, No. 1A, Ad. F 91/41. SFO, Selangor, 23 Sept. 1942, Ad. F 29/42; Cheah Boon Kheng, ‘The social impact of the Japanese Occupation of Malaya’, in A.W. McCoy, Southeast Asia under Japanese Occupation, New Haven: Yale Southeast Asia Monograph Series, No. 22, 1980, p. 106. T.N., Harper, ‘The Colonial Inheritance: State and society in Malaya, 1945–1957’, PhD thesis, Cambridge University, 1992, pp. 48–49. Medical Trends: Institute for Medical Research, p. 204; R.E. Anderson, Director of Medical Services, Federation of Malaya, Report of the Medical Department for 1955, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1957, p. 36. During the Japanese Occupation, research into scrub typhus was conducted in Java, Sumatra and Malaya under the direction of Lt. Col. Kiyosi Hayakawa. A former Professor of bacteriology at Tokyo University, he was Director of the Japanese Army Institute of Preventive Medicine [Nampogun Boekukusui Bu], previously the King Edward VII College of Medicine in Singapore. The Institute published, among other things, research on various aspects of mite-typhus. No particular advance, however, was made on treatment of the disease and research was resumed after the war by the Colonial Medical Service. Medical Trends, pp. 203, 205–206. V.L. Bain, ‘Organization of the Forest Dept. in Selangor under the Japanese Regime’, 1942– 1945, 26 Sept. 1945, Ad. F 30/45, No. 1. Ibid. J. Falconer, ‘Malaya’, Corona, 10 (1956) p. 31. R. Clutterbuck, The Long, Long War: The Emergency in Malaya, 1948–1960, London: Cassell, 1966, p. 15.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 258 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

258

24 The resurgence of malaria during rubber replanting, between 1936 and 1940, was evidently still fresh in the public mind. 25 ‘Are forests an asset or a liability?’, Editorial, Malay Mail (New Order), 9 Sept. 1942. Publication of the Malay Mail which ceased on 7 Jan. 1942, two days before Kuala Lumpur fell, resumed 11 days later and operated for about a year until the Japanese set up their own newspaper. Turnbull, Dateline Singapore, p. 117 26 C. Totman, The Green Archipelago: Forestry in Pre-Industrial Japan, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989, pp. 5–6, 149–169. 27 Malay Mail, 16 Sept. 1942. 28 Totman, The Green Archipelago, pp. 199, 287. 29 See pp. 206–207. 30 E.J.H. Corner, The Marquis: A Tale of Syonan-to, Singapore: Heinemann Asia, 1981, p. 90. 31 A detailed and sympathetic account of Tanakadate is presented by Corner who was his assistant at the Museum. Ibid., pp. 37–38, 48–49, 101. 32 Ibid., p. 36. 33 J. Arditti, ‘Kwan Koriba: Botanist and soldier’, Gardens’ Bulletin, 42, i (1989), pp. 3, 13; Marquis Tokugawa, Travels Around Java in the 1920s, (trans.) M. Iguchi: The Tokugawa Reimeikai Foundation, Tokyo, 1996, Appendix, pp. cxxx–cxxxi, cxlii. 34 Tanakadate Hidezo, ‘Preface’ (Translation of the Japanese Preface of 1943), C.F. Symington, Foresters’ Manual of Dipterocarps, Malayan Forest Records, 16, Reprinted, Kuala Lumpur: Penerbit Universiti Malaya, 1974. 35 Corner, ‘Introduction’, Symington, Foresters’ Manual of Dipterocarps. 36 Lt. Col. Mead, Officer-in-Charge, Forests, BMA, Malaya,’ Situation Report on the Forest Dept., Sept. 1945’, Ad. F 30/45. 37 Japanese Occupation 1942–45, No. 46 (a), n.d. DF 58/45. 38 This was largely in the core districts of Kuala Lumpur, Kelang and Rawang. 39 The DFOs in charge were Mahidin Mohamed Rashad (Kelang), Harun Mohd Taib (Kuala Lumpur) and M.I. O’Hara (Rawang). DFO, Ulu Selangor, to the Sinrin Hang Cho, Selangor, n.d. Ad. F 49/42. 40 ‘Roll of Honor’, Malayan Forester, 17 (1954) p. 72. 41 Report of the Forest Dept. for the period covering the Japanese Occupation, 11 Feb. 1946, DF 30/ 1945. 42 Edwards, DFO, Lower Perak, to SFO, Perak, 15 Jan. 1945, No. 7, FLOP 1/2604. 43 Ibid. 44 Chin Kee On, Malaya Upside Down, Singapore: Federal Publications, 1946, pp. 85–86. 45 Report, Forest Officer, Larut and Kinta, 21 Jan. 1944, DO’s Conference, No. 11, SFO Pk. 4/04. 46 DFO, Lower Perak, 7 Aug. 1944, No. 3, SFO Pk 9/04; Report of the DFO, Kuala Kangsar, 19 Jan. 1944, No. 9, PHK 9/04. 47 Cheah, ‘The social impact of the Japanese Occupation of Malaya’, p. 106; Chin, Malaya Upside Down, p. 86. 48 Shunsuke Hanai, Holder of Mangrove Forestry Licences in Larut, Matang and Dindings, ‘Gunsei to kigyô katsudô: Malaya-Perak-shu mangrove shinrin kaihatsu jigyô ni sokushite’, [Military Administration and Industry: with special reference to mangrove forestry in the State of Perak, Malaya], in Yasuyuki Hikita (ed.), Nanpo Kyoei Ken [Southern Co-prosperity Sphere], Tokyo: Taga Shuppan, 1995, pp. 506–509; 513–515; Yasuyuki, ‘Japanese companies’ inroads into Indonesia’, p. 665, note 11. 49 Hanai, ‘Gunsei to kigyô katsudô’, pp. 536–538; C. Marshall, SFO, Perak, 15 Feb. 1946, Ipoh, Confidential, Ad. F 30/45. 50 ‘List of Companies active in the Southern Area under army control: by Region’, in Nanpô Gunsei Shriyô, KAI III-1-9, Nanpo Rikugun Chiku Sinshutsu Kigyô Kaisha Ichiran: Chiikibetsu [Documents on Southern Military Administration], KAI III-1-9, p. 83, Japanese Ministry Foreign Affairs Archives, Tokyo. I am grateful to Junko Tomaru, of Kobe University, for this reference. See also Leo Thomas, 2 Sept. 1945, Timber Inspector to the Timber Purchase Officer, Kuala Lumpur, Ad. F15/45; Report of Forest Administration, Kinta District, 20 Jan. 1944, No. 10, PHK 9/04. 51 E.C.F. Foenander, DFO, Lower Perak, 22 Jan. 1944, No. 13, SFO Pk 4/04; DFO, Dindings, n.d., No. 4, PHL 2/04; Report from Forest Officer, Larut and Kinta, 21 Jan. 1944, DO’s Conference, No. 11, SFO Pk. 4/04.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 259 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

The Seminal Years of Forest Politics, 1942–56 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

61 62 63 64 65 66

67 68 69 70 71 72

73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

•

259

DFO, Lower Perak, 15 Jan. 1944, No. 1 in FOLP 1/2404. Marshall, 15 Feb. 1946, Ipoh, Ad. F 30/40. Akashi, ‘The Watanabe Gunsei in Occupied Malaya and Singapore, 1941–43’, n.p. Foenander, DFO, Lower Perak, 22 Jan. 1944, No. 13, SFO Pk 4/04; DFO Dindings, n.d., No. 4, PHL 2/04; Report from Forest Officer, Larut and Kinta, 1 Jan. 1944, DOs’ Conference, No. 11, SFO Perak. Bain, Extra-Asst Conservator of Forests, Kuala Lumpur, 26 Sept. 1945, Ad. F 30/45, No. 1; Chin, Malaya Upside Down, p. 87. C. Marshall, (Confidential), ‘Situation Report on Perak’, SFO, Perak, Ipoh, to Director of Forestry, BMA, 15 Feb. 1946, No. 1, Ad. F 30/45. ‘Situation Report on Perak’, 15 Feb. 1946, No. 1, Ad. F 30/45. Ibid. One example of low-efficiency production was the 200-odd charcoal kilns worked in Perak for the iron-smelting industry. Also, the method of salt production by boiling in the mangroves, which the Japanese encouraged, is calculated to have involved some 600 kg firewood for producing one kg of salt! Boat building resulted in comparable wastage through the lack of expertise, not least, for the selection of suitable timbers for the industry. ‘Situation Report’, Perak, 15 Feb. 1946, No. 1, Ad. F 30/45. These were, namely: Toyo Kozan, a mining company that bought firewood; Nichimen, engaged in coal production and Ando Han, the military contractor. SFO, Sungai Patani, Kedah, to the Director of Forests, 9 Feb. 1946, No. 14, Ad. F 30/45. Shuseirei Kerajaan, Terengganu, 25 Feb. 1942, No. 6, Ad. F 94/45. Report, Forest Dept. Terengganu, Forest Officer, n. d., No. 10A, Ad. F 30/45. Acting SFO, Terengganu, 13 Oct. 1945, No 3A, Ad. F 113/45. Report, Forest Dept. Terengganu, Forest Officer, n. d., No.10A, Ad. F 30/45. Allegedly, the people worked 10 days a month without any pay, receiving only subsistence rice. Those who did not comply were arrested and punished. Report, Forest Dept. Terengganu, Kemaman, Awang Gedih, Forest Ranger, 2 Oct. 1945, No. 1A, Ad. F 30/45. In the interests, presumably, of sustaining yields for its sawmill, Hin Leong Company maintained pre-war standards of selective logging, with minimum damage in its working area at Hulu Yak Yah. SFO, Kelantan, Report, Forest Dept., Kuala Kerai, 2 Jan. 1946, DF 30/45. G. Wilkinson, ‘Position of the Pahang Forest Dept …’, No 13 A, Ad. F 30/45. Mead, ‘Situation Report’, 1 Oct. 1945, No. 2A, Ad. F 30/45. Chin Kee On, Malaya Upside Down, p. 172; Report, Forest Dept. Terengganu, 2 Oct. 1945, No. 1 A, Ad. F 30/45. The use of timbers other than the traditionally selected varieties, and other fundamental errors in construction, suggested poor supervision and sabotage by the generally skilled local craftsmen. Wilkinson, ‘Position of the Pahang Forest Dept.’, n.d., No. 13 A, Ad. F 30/45; T.A. Strong, Director of Forests, 4 Feb. 1946, BMA/DPT/11/13. Lt. Col. Mead, Officer in Charge, Forest Dept., BMA, ‘Situation Report’, Kuala Lumpur, 1 Oct. 1945, No. 2A, Ad. F 30/45. Strong, 4 Feb. 1946, BMA/DEPT/11/13. SFO, Sungai Patani, Kedah, to the Director of Forests, 2 Sept. 1946, No. 14, Ad. F 30/45. A.B. Walton, Officer-in-Charge, BMA, Negeri Sembilan and Melaka, to the Director of Forestry, Seremban, 6 Feb. 1946, No. 9, Ad. F 40/35. Marshall, Report, Forest Dept., Perak, Dec. 1945, DF 119/45. Strong, 8 Jan. 1946, BMA/DEP/3; 4 Feb. 1946, BMA/DEPT/11/13. Diary of the SFO, Kedah, Oct. 1946, No. 21, DF 36/46. Report, Forest Dept. Terengganu, 2 Oct. 1945, No.1A, Ad. F 30/45. Wilkinson, ‘Position of the Pahang Forest Dept.’, n.d., No. 13 A, Ad. F 30/45. Clutterbuck, The Long, Long War, pp. 45, 54. S. Chapman, The Jungle is Neutral, London: Chatto & Windus, 1949, pp. 114–115. Chapman, The Jungle is Neutral, p. 202. A.E.C. Bredin, The Happy Warriors, Gillingham, Dorset: The Blackmore Press, 1961, p. 229.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 260 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

260

86 Clutterbuck, The Long, Long War, p. 89. 87 Chapman, The Jungle is Neutral, pp. 318–319. 88 Chapman, The Jungle is Neutral, p. 306; A. Campbell, Jungle Green, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1953, p. 175. 89 Chapman, The Jungle is Neutral, p. 209. 90 Ibid., pp.154–155, 203. 91 Jones, ‘Orang Asli’, p. 294. 92 Chapman, The Jungle is Neutral, pp. 226–227 93 See N. Dodge, ‘Population estimates for the Malay Peninsula in the nineteenth century, with special reference to the East Coast States’, Population Studies, 34, iii (1980) p. 455; see also Appendix 3. 94 Marshall, Report on the working of the Forest Dept. Perak, Dec. 1945, DF 119/45. 95 Harper, The End of Empire, p. 98. 96 Chief Secretary, BMA, Kuala Lumpur, 18 Oct. 1945, Ad. F 13/45; Lt. Col. C. Marshall, Officer-in-Charge, Forests, Kuala Lumpur, to SFO, 23 Oct. 1945, Ad. F 13/45. 97 A. Short, The Communist Insurrection in Malaya, 1948–60, London: Muller, 1976, pp. 195, 204. 98 Harper, The End of Empire, pp. 107–108. 99 For a detailed account, see Harper, The End of Empire, pp. 113–114. 100 D. Young, Four Five: The Story of the 45 Commando, Royal Marines, 1943–1971, London: Leo Cooper, 1972, p. 159. 101 R. Follows (with H. Popham), The Jungle Beat: Fighting Terrorists in Malaya, 1952–61, London: Cassell, 1990, p. 113. 102 Campbell, Jungle Green, p. 14. 103 Follows, The Jungle Beat, p. 18. 104 E. Mitchell, ‘Rubber estate with “Private Army”’, The Crown Colonist, London, 1949, pp. 449–450; R.J.K. Thompson, ‘The jungle is armed’, Corona, I, iv (1949) p. 11. 105 H. Miller, Menace in Malaya (First published 1954), London: George G. Harrap, 1970, pp. 172–174. See p. 128. 106 Harper, The End of Empire, p. 166. 107 Miller, Menace in Malaya, pp. 172–173, 176. 108 Harper, The End of Empire, pp. 166–167. 109 See Short, The Communist Insurrection in Malaya, pp. 439–455. 110 Keruh Sub-District: Annual Administration Report, 1948, Blake Papers, Mss. Ind. Ocn S. 276, RHO; J.Wyatt-Smith, ‘Forestry, agricultural settlements and land planning’, Malayan Forester, 13, iv (1950), p. 211. 111 Forest Department Notice, n.d. No. 6A, Ad. F 129/45. 112 Diary of D.F. Grant, DFO South Perak, 19 March 1948, 17 Feb. 1948, DF 370/46; Diary of J. Wyatt-Smith, SFO, Kedah, 2 Nov. 1946, DF 36/46; Strong, BMA, 4 Feb. 1946, BMA/DEPT/11/3. 113 Director of Forestry, Forest Policy, to Private Secretary to the High Commissioner, 14 May 1948, DF 174/46. 114 E.F. Allen, Agricultural Officer, Perak South, to SFO, 29 Sept. 1939; 7 March 1946, Ad. F 113/ 1945. 115 Wyatt-Smith, ‘Forestry, agricultural settlements and land planning’, p. 207. 116 E.H.G. Dobby, ‘Recent settlement changes in South Malaya’, Malayan Journal of Tropical Geography, 1 (1953) p. 5. 117 Wyatt-Smith, ‘Shifting cultivation in Malaya’, pp. 146–147. 118 Wyatt-Smith, ‘Forestry, agricultural settlements and land planning’, pp. 207–248. 119 Wyatt-Smith, ‘Shifting cultivation in Malaya’, p. 149; Arnot and Smith, ‘Shifting cultivation in Brunei and Terengganu’, p. 14. 120 Wyatt-Smith, ‘Shifting cultivation in Malaya’, p. 142. There was confusion over the definition of ‘old clearings’. The Forest Department did not determine at what stage a forest clearing ceased to be a ‘clearing’ and was deemed ‘mature forest’ carrying commercial timber. Smith, SFO, Perak South, to Forest Adviser, Ad. F 259/39. 121 Wyatt-Smith, ‘Shifting cultivation in Malaya’, p. 149.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 261 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

The Seminal Years of Forest Politics, 1942–56

•

261

122 Marshall, SFO, Perak to Director of Forestry, 26 June 1946, DF 1004/46; Director of Forestry to SFO, Perak, 16 July 1946, Ad. F 259/39, No. 5. 123 Diary of E.C. Foenander, DFO, Kuantan, 24 June 1957, PHN Phg. 33/50 Pt II. 124 G.C. Dodwell, ADO, Tanjung Malim, ‘Aboriginal tribes in Tanjong Malim sub-district’, 20 Dec. 1948, Dodwell Papers, Mss. Ind. Ocn. S. 193, RHO. 125 A. E. Beveridge, Forest Officer, Pahang East, to OCPD, Rompin, 4 April 1952; Beveridge to Asst Forest Officer, Kuala Lipis, 24 July 1952, SFO Phg. 89/52. 126 Cole,‘Temiar Senoi agriculture’, Pt I, pp. 191–192; Pt II, pp. 260, 262. 127 Report of Senior Land Officer, Pahang, 8 Jan 1954, PHN Phg. 51/54. 128 W. Senftleben, Background to Agricultural Land Policy in Malaysia, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1978, p. 81. 129 B.A. Mitchell, ‘A note on land erosion in the Cameron Highlands’, Abstracted from Hydroelectric Technical Memorandum No. 3 of the Central Electricity Board, ‘River flow in the Cameron Highlands’, Malayan Forester, 20 (1957) pp. 30–31. 130 Mitchell, ’A note on land erosion in the Cameron Highlands’, pp. 30–31. 131 A.B. Walton, ‘Land planning and forestry’, Malayan Forester,’ 14 (1951) iv, p. 213. 132 Lt. P. McNee, State Officer, Irrigation, Soil Erosion, 19 Nov. 1945, No. 9A, DF 113/1945. 133 J. Wyatt-Smith, ‘Save the belukar’, Malayan Forester, 18 (1955) p. 26. 134 This was well in excess of the 18-degree limit permitted in Ceylon. H.A.C. Luckham, Commissioner of Lands FMS, 17 Sept. 1954, Circular No 5/54, PHN Phg. 110/58. Strictly speaking, however, all land alienation in Cameron Highlands exceeding 18 degrees gradient was subject to the scrutiny of the State Land Officer and the State Natural Resources Board. Minutes, 18th Meeting of the State Natural Resources Board, 28 July 1958, PHN Phg. 110/54. 135 Pahang Natural Resources Board, 24 July 1954, No. 23; Marshall, SFO, Selangor, 24 June 1955, No. 32 (a), PHN Phg. 110/54; S.F. Walker, SFO, Pahang, Pahang Information Paper No. 25, PHN Phg. 34/51. 136 Dy Chief Secretary, Soil Erosion, 26 June 1946, No. 15A, Ad. F, 113/45. 137 To reclaim the degraded land under Imperata, Melastoma malabathricum (Straits Rhododendron), Chromolaena odorata (Siam weed) and bamboo, the Forest Department launched a land reclamation and catchment protection programme, emphasizing artificially accelerated regrowth of belukar. Wyatt-Smith, ‘Save the belukar’, pp. 24–25. 138 ‘Reclamation of degraded soils and waste land’, Economic Officer’s Office, Malayan Union Secretariat, Kuala Lumpur, Jan. 1947, DF 382/46, No. 21. Report of the Federal Forest Administration (hereafter RFFA), 1954, p. 13. In line with the new trend, the heading, ‘Botany’, in the Annual Report of the Forest Department was replaced with ‘Forest Botany and Ecology’. 139 Marshall, BMA, Dec. 1945, DF 119/45; 15 Feb. 1946, Ad. F 30/45. The Malayan Union created a unitary state comprising the FMS, UFMS, Melaka and Penang. However, due to strong Malay opposition to equal citizenship to all under the new constitution, the plan was revoked and the Federation of Malaya declared on 1 Feb. 1948. 140 Short, The Communist Insurrection in Malaya, p. 173–174; Major C. Marshall, Officer-inCharge of Forests, BMA, to the Chief Police Officer, Selangor, 30 Sept. 1945, No. 1, Ad. F 44/45. 141 Strong, BMA, Forest Dept. Periodical Reports, 5 March 1946, BMA/DEPT/11/3. 142 Marshall, Monthly Progress Report for Perak, Dec. 1945 and Jan. 1946, Ad. F 119/45. 143 RFFA, 1950, p. 4. 144 RFFA, 1951, p. 3. 145 RFFA, 1950, pp. 90–91. 146 Hubback was among those who sought refuge in the park during the Japanese Occupation and, fittingly, was buried there after his murder at the close of the war. Gullick and Hawkins, Malayan Pioneers, p. 85. 147 RFFA, 1950, p. 63; Annual Report, Game Dept. Pahang, 1953, p. 2. 148 Mohd Lassin Idris, Seremban, to Chief-Officer-in-Charge, Industries and Engineering Dept., 14 July 1942, DF 13/45. 149 Annual Report of the Game Department, Malayan Union, 1947, p. 8. 150 RFFA, 1947, pp. 41–42; RFFA, 1949, p. 94.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 262 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

262

151 The Home Guard possessed a large number of weapons and ammunition, including shotguns and rifles. Annual Report of the Game Department, Pahang, 1953, p. 2. 152 Klang District Annual Administration Report, 1946, Blake Papers, Mss. Ind. Ocn. S. 276, RHO; Cheah, ‘The social impact of the Japanese occupation of Malaya’, p. 106. 153 Short, The Communist Insurrection in Malaya, p. 195. 154 Roff, The Origins of Malay Nationalism, p. 240. 155 Shaharuddin Maaruf, Malay Ideas on Development: From Feudal Lord to Capitalist, Singapore: Times Publications, 1988, pp. 92–95. 156 Roff, The Origins of Malay Nationalism, pp. 226–228. 157 Ishak Haji Muhammad, Putera Gunong Tahan, Singapore, 1937. All citations are from H. Aveling (trans.), The Prince of Mount Tahan, Singapore: Heinemann, 1980. For Ishak’s role in the radical politics of post-war nationalism, see Harper, The End of Empire, passim. 158 Ishak, The Prince of Mount Tahan, pp. 19–20 159 Shaharuddin Maaruf, Malay Ideas on Development, p. 103. 160 Ishak, The Prince of Mount Tahan, p. 39. 161 Ibid., pp. 30–31. 162 Ibid., p. 19. 163 Ibid., pp. 44–46. 164 Ibid., p. 56. 165 Ibid., pp. 40–41. 166 Ibid., pp. 60–61. 167 Halinah Bamadhaj, ‘The Impact of the Japanese Occupation of Malaya on Malay Society and Politics, 1941–45’, MA thesis, University of Auckland, 1975, p. 105. 168 Wyatt-Smith, ‘Forestry, agricultural settlement and land planning’, pp. 211–212; C. Marshall, ‘Land use morality’, Malayan Forester, 15, ii (1952) p. 90; Clutterbuck, The Long, Long War, p. 56. For a detailed account of the outcome of the scheme see Harper, End of Empire, pp. 175–181. 169 Dodwell, ‘Aboriginal tribes in Tanjong Malim sub-district’, 20 Dec. 1948. 170 Quoted in T. Harper, ‘Colonial inheritance’, p. 128. 171 Conference of Heads of Depts., Kuantan, 27 Feb. 1959, Item 8, PHN Phg. 175/57; Badrillah Ab. Karim, Orang Asli Representative, to Aboriginal Officer, 16 May 1963, Extract from Minutes of the 69th meeting of the Pahang Executive Council, Pekan, 6 July 1955, No. 8, SFO Phg. 185/54. For a study of Malay-Orang Asli land conflict in Kedah, see Shuichi Nagata, ‘The origin of an Orang Asli Reserve in Kedah’, in R.L.W. Winzeler (ed.), Indigenous Peoples and the State: Politics, Land, and Ethnicity in the Malayan Peninsula and Borneo, Monograph 46, New Haven: Yale Southeast Asia Studies, 1997, pp. 90–93. 172 Editorial, ‘The right to survive’, Straits Times, 26 July 1956. 173 Proceedings of the Legislative Council of the Federation of Malaya, March 1953-Jan. 1954, Kuala Lumpur, 1954, p. 1059. 174 Act 134: ‘Aboriginal Peoples Act, 1954’. This enactment, specially designed for the Emergency, was aimed largely at restricting Orang Asli movement and their contact with Communist elements. 175 Editorial, ‘The right to survive’, Straits Times, 26 July 1956. 176 P.D.R. Williams-Hunt, Confidential Memo, 4 May 1950, FS 12663/1950. 177 Protector of Aborigines to SFO, Pahang, 6 Oct. 1966; SFO Pahang to Protector of Aborigines, 11 Oct. 1966, SFO Phg. 72/59, Pt II. 178 Act. 134, ‘Aboriginal Peoples Act, 1954’. 179 FMS Enactments, 1935, p. 273; Wyatt-Smith, ‘Shifting cultivation in Malaya’, p. 148. The Ordinance, formulated without consulting the foresters, caused strong reaction particularly from C. Marshall. See Leary, Violence, pp. 163–165. 180 C. Marshall, ‘Long term policy of aborigine administration’, Comments, 2 June 1956, DF 787/54; Marshall to Perak State Aborigines Advisory Board, 1 April 1957, No. 27, SFO PK 244/56; Marshall to Menteri Besar, Perak, 20 April 1957, No. 42, DF 787/54; Marshall to State Secretary, Johor, 12 July 1958, DF 787/54; Marshall to State Secretary, Johor, 1 Dec. 1958, Ref. 20 in CFJ 484/50.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 263 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

The Seminal Years of Forest Politics, 1942–56

•

263

181 R. Noone, Acting Director of Museums and Adviser on Aborigines, ‘A note on the conflict of interest between the Forestry Dept. and the Dept. of Aborigines as exemplified by the Forest Enactment Cap. 153, Forest Rules 1935 and the Aboriginal Peoples Ordinance Cap. 3/1954’, 24 March 1956, DF 787/54. 182 R.C. Corfield, Protector of Aborigines, Perak, to Chairman, Perak State Aborigines Advisory Board, 28 March 1957, No. 24A, SFO PK 244/56; ‘Statement of policy regarding the administration of the Orang Asli…’, Dept. of Aboriginal Affairs, Ministry of Home Affairs, 1961 in PHN Phg. 175/57. 183 Director-General, Forestry, to the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, 11 Feb. 1963, PHN Phg. 72/59. 184 M.B. Hooker, The Personal Laws of Malaysia: An Introduction, Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1976, p. 180; Williams-Hunt, Confidential Memo, 4 May 1950, FS 12663/1950. Williams-Hunt’s estimate of the Orang Asli population was much higher than the 45,000 estimated later in 1965 and closer to the 1993 figure. See Dunn, Rainforest Collectors and Traders, p. 21; Lim, Orang Asli Forest and Development, p. 36. 185 Though occupants of Malay Reservation who relinquished land to the State were entitled to compensation at another site, Orang Asli received only monetary compensation for rubber and fruit trees on vacated sites, and this at rates fixed by the government. Dentan et al., Malaysia and ‘The Original People’, p. 75. 186 Quoted in Wyatt-Smith to Chief Conservator of Forests, 29 Oct. 1962, DF 787/54, No. 146. 187 Hooker, The Personal Laws of Malaysia, p. 176. 188 Watson, ‘ Some materials for a forest history’, p. 70. 189 T. A. Strong, Report of the Forest Administration in the Malayan Union, 1947, Kuala Lumpur, 1948, pp. 3, 8. Abdul Majid Mohd Shahid, whose training was delayed by the war, departed in 1946 for Oxford. The promotion the same year of the first Malay officer, Mohammed Alwy Suleiman, to the post of Asst Conservator and, in 1959, to Conservator, marked an important milestone. 190 Mead, Officer-in-Charge, BMA, to the Officer-in-Charge, Photographic Reconnaissance, RAF, Kuala Lumpur, 29 Oct. 1945, No. 3 A, DF 83/45; RFFA, 1951, p. 36. 191 P.F. Burgess, ‘The impact of commercial forestry in hill forests of the Malay Peninsula’, in E. Soepadmo and K.G. Singh (eds), Proceedings of the Symposium on Biological Resources and National Development, Kuala Lumpur: Malayan Nature Society, 1973, p. 131. 192 RFFA, 1951, p. 26; FAO and UN, ‘Forest and forest industries development, Malaysia’, FAO: DP/MAL/009, Technical Report 8, Rome, 1973, p.9. 193 Strong, Report of the Forest Administration in the Malayan Union, 1946, pp. 5, 7. Though sawmilling was introduced in the Peninsula around 1900, hand sawing continued until the 1930s and meranti was hand-sawn until about 1946. FAO, ‘Forestry and forestry industries development, Malaysia: A national forest inventory of Peninsular Malaysia’. DP/ MAL/72/ 009,Technical Report No. 5, Rome, 1972, p. 9. 194 Edwards, ‘Extract from situation report on the Forest Dept., Malaya’, Sept. 1945. 195 RFFA, 1948, p. 3. 196 RFFA, 1949, p. 27. 197 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), The Economic Development of Malaya, New York: John Hopkins Press, 1955, pp. 276–277. 198 See Table: ‘Comparison of timber production, regeneration of forest reserves and opening of forest reserves felling’, in Burgess, ‘The impact of commercial forestry on the hill forests of the Malay Peninsula’, p. 132. 199 C.A. Fisher, A Social, Economic and Political Geography of South-East Asia, London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1964, pp. 617, 621. 200 RFFA, 1951, p. 25. 201 P. Burgess, ‘Ecological factors in hill and mountain forests of the States of Malaya’, Malayan Nature Society, 22 (1969) p. 122. 202 Burgess, ‘The impact of commercial forestry’, p. 131. 203 RFFA, 1955, p. 51. 204 RFFA, 1951, pp. 31, 47. 205 See Whitmore, Tropical Rain Forests of the Far East, pp. 96–98; Wyatt-Smith, Manual, I, p. III-4/3.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 264 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

264

206 RFFA, 1959, pp. 38–39. 207 J. Wyatt-Smith and A.J. Vincent ‘Progressive development in the management of tropical lowland evergreen rain forest and mangrove forest in Peninsular Malaya’, Malayan Forester 25, ii (1962) p. 206; Wyatt-Smith, Manual of Malayan Silviculture, I, pp. III-4/2-III-4/3. 208 Mohd Noor Zainul Abidin, Kemaman, to the SFO, Terengganu, 29 Dec. 1946; Mohd Noor to Director of Forestry, Malayan Union, Kuala Lumpur, 29 March 1947, No. 201, DF 51/45. 209 Marshall, BMA, to E. Teyler, Manager, Dreyfus & Co., New Jersey, USA, 29 Oct. 1945, No. 5, Ad. F 51/45; Strong, BMA, Taiping, 19 Feb. 1946, No. 69, Ad. F 51/45. 210 Ng Teong Kiat Factory Ltd., Kuala Lumpur, to SFO, Pahang, 6 Dec. 1946, No. 184, DF 51/45. 211 List of Licensees, No. 193 A, Ad. F 51/45. 212 J.S. Addison, SFO, Terengganu, to Director of Forestry, Malayan Union, 29 April 1947, DF 51/45, No. 209. 213 Map, No. 125A, DF 51/45. 214 Mohd Noor to Director of Forestry, Malayan Union, Kuala Lumpur, 29 March 1947, No. 201, DF 51/45. 215 See Harper, The End of Empire, p. 123. 216 Editorial, ‘Business sense the hard way’, Straits Times, 17 Dec. 1955. 217 Malay Chamber of Commerce, Perak, to Haji Yahaya Abdul Razak, n.d., Received, State Forest Office, Perak, 19 March 1956, No. 50, SFO Phg. 95/92. 218 Diary, E.C. Foenander, DFO, Pahang East, Kuantan, 5 and 6 June 1957, PHN Phg. 33/50, Pt II. 219 J.S. Addison, SFO, Pahang, to Director of Forestry, 16 March 1956, SFO Phg. 95/92. 220 Foenander, DFO, Kuantan, to SFO, 3 Aug. 1956, No. 6, PHN Phg. 89/55. 221 RFFA, 1952, p. 28. 222 Memo (Confidential), ‘Participation of Malays in forest industry’, J.S. Smith, Acting Director of Forestry, 7 June 1956, SFO Phg. 95/52. 223 Menteri Besar, Pahang, to Forest Officer, Kuantan, 24 March 1959, No. 79; DFO to SFO, Kuantan and Rompin, Pahang, 25 April 1958, No. 80, SFO Phg. 95/92. 224 RFFA, 1955, p. 35. 225 RFFA, 1956, p. 51. 226 RFFA, 1954, p. 56. 227 RFFA, 1954, p. 56; D.S.P. Noakes, Acting Director of Forestry, ‘Malays in the timber industry’, 3 March 1956, SFO Phg. 95/92. 228 The Forest Department favoured the logger-cum-miller. A logger, who was not also a miller, dealt only with the more expensive species, leaving forestry the task of removing the residual species by poison girdling. 229 ‘Forest areas for Malays’, No. 15(a) in DF 612. 230 ‘Malays in the timber industry’, SFO Phg. 95/52. 231 K.A. Blacker, Commissioner for Lands and Mines, ‘Participation of Malays in the forest industry’, 27 Feb. 1957, SFO Phg. 95/92. 232 Article 153 (7) stipulated that safeguarding the special position of the Malays should in no way affect existing licences held by non-Malays or prevent their renewal by their heirs and successors. Kedah State Executive Council, ‘Participation of Malays in the forest industry’, Explanatory notes, 17 April 1958, in SFO Phg. 95/92. 233 ‘Participation of Malays in the forest industry’, in SFO Phg. 95/92. 234 In Pahang there were 175 non-Malay and 62 Malay logging licensees compared to 56 nonMalay, 5 Malay and 1 Sino-Malay sawmilling licensees. P.W.J. Edington, DFO, to SFO, Bentong and Raub, Pahang, 27 Nov. 1956, No. 63, SFO Phg. 95/52; Conservator of Forests, FMS, to Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, 20 Jan. 1961, No. 12, SFO Phg. 95/92. 235 Diary of J.S. Addison, SFO, Pahang, 2 March 1955, SFO Phg. 61/54 Pt I. 236 RFFA, 1954, p. 6. 237 The Secretary, Sharikat Perushaan Kayu Pahang Timor, 6 Feb. 1964, Kuantan, SFO Phg. 95/ 92. See also p. 375.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 265 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

CHAPTER NINE

Development at a Price: 1957–69 Malaya and the Borneo territories still have most of the cards in their hands and can profit by the great experience gained from the mistakes of others less fortunate – or less wise. – M.E.D. Poore.1

he Peninsular forests returned to national custody at Independence in 1957, only to be surrendered to accelerated development in the decades that followed. Development programmes, endorsed by international agencies, raced ahead of rational land use planning, relegating environmental issues to the concerns of a small but influential scientific community. Efforts were directed towards dispelling conventional assumptions of the forest as a permanent and self-generating entity and promoting the ethics of environmental stewardship. Local conservation efforts, in tune with rising international interest in tropical forest preservation, lent continuity to pre-war initiatives for promoting the creation of multi-purpose parks and reserves as a means of reconciling the aims of development and nature preservation.

T

AN AB OR TE D POLICY

In the absence of a rationalized land use policy that would safeguard the interests of forestry against the prevailing scramble for land,2 the Director of Forestry, E.J. Shrubshall (1953–56),3 took the bold step of drawing up the 1955 Interim Forest Policy (IFP).4 In the light of post-war reconstruction and development, the IFP attempted to secure the tenure of Forest Reserves against the onrush of claims from the landless and government-sponsored mega plantation and resettlement schemes. While conceding to the revocation of some Reserves in the interests of planned development, the IFP argued that random alienation to cultivators and estates amounted to ‘a policy of drift, denying security of tenure without which scientific forest management is literally impossible’.5 A cardinal principle enunciated by the IFP was that Protection and Production Forests should never be alienated save in the most exceptional circumstances and emphasized the importance of reconciling the interests of forestry and agriculture within a rational framework of land use planning. Foresters linked planned forest use with the process of nation building. ‘The piecemeal surrender of Forest Reserves, tanta-

KWells_book_3.fm Page 266 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

266

mount to denying such planning’, claimed the forester, A.B. Walton, ‘could never be admitted by any Government or individual that had the true interests of a country at heart’.6 The IFP also voiced the importance of fostering public education, instilling a real understanding among people of the value of forests to them and their descendants.7 Maintaining forestry’s pre-war bid for a fair share of the timber-rich lowlands below 300 m, the IFP adopted a 2:1 quota for agriculture versus forestry, generally recognized in Europe and North America. With sustainable production as a central objective, it proposed setting aside 25 per cent of the land area for Production Forests alone.8 This compared with the existing 15.7 per cent under reservation for the whole of the Peninsula, and the 25 per cent targeted previously for both Production and Protection Forests.9 It was calculated that sustainability was contingent upon logging no more than one-seventieth of the forests annually, matched by a proportionate investment in intensive management. Shrubshall’s proposal, though accepted in principle by the States, was not formally endorsed.10 Given widespread landlessness and the higher priorities of rural development, the targeted increase in the total area of Production Forests would have been nothing short of a miracle. In fact, government bias towards agriculture was manifested in the incorporation of the Forest Department within the Ministry of Agriculture. Furthermore, plans for stepping up silvicultural work were frustrated by the low financial allocation. Shrubshall’s pre-Independence plan for setting aside a proportion of the timber revenues for financing regeneration (in this case $74 per ha) on the model adopted in other areas of the Commonwealth, did not elicit support from the Colonial Office. 11 Furthermore, notwithstanding the recommendation by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) that Malaya should industrialize and expand its timber trade, its proposed allocation for forestry was low. 12 This meant that Malaya entered nationhood without a viable programme for sustainable management and, within a short period following the war, exploitation outpaced sustainability. The IFP had based its calculations on the needs of the current population of 6.2 million, allowing just 350,000 cu m for export. 13 By 1968 these figures were outstripped by exports in excess of one million cu m and a population of over 8 million 14 Although the 1957 Federal Constitution of Independent Malaya reflected a strong centralizing bias and provided uniform legislation,15 it did not alter State control over natural resources. Under this arrangement, which has since remained, the responsibility of the Federal Forest Department headed by the Chief Conservator was limited to forest sector planning, training, research and development, and technical advice and services. The actual administration and management of forest resources, such as forest law enforcement, revenue collection and control over the timber industry, remained with State Forest Departments, accountable to their respective State governments. The Chief Conservator

KWells_book_3.fm Page 267 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development at a Price: 1957–69

•

267

of Forests considered his department worse off under the new constitution. Whereas reforestation of degraded land could be incorporated within the ‘Development Plan’, forestry per se was inadequately served. A serious snag was that, although the Federal government could enact a Forest Ordinance, a constitutional safeguard provided that ‘no such law shall come into operation in any State unless the legislature of the State adopts it by Enactment’.16 The resurgence of State power, under the cultural influence of the Sultans and the political power of Chief Ministers (Menteri Besar),17 created conditions for tension between centre and periphery that has proved to be the Achilles heel of Malaysian development. The Federal Constitution provided for a National Land Council (NLC) for coordinating State and Federal policies and objectives covering land use, mining, forestry and agriculture. Formed in 1958, it was designed ‘to formulate from time to time in consultation with the Federal Government, the State Governments and the National Finance Council a national policy [my emphasis] for the promotion and control of the utilization of land throughout the Federation’. 18 The development of natural resources was therefore perceived piecemeal, rather than holistically. In March 1959, the Cabinet appointed a Working Party19 to make recommendations for a National Forest Policy (NFP), to be submitted to the NLC. 20 Central to the Working Party’s Report were two fundamental issues that the Forest Department had earlier stressed. First, it was argued that to guarantee future timber supplies, the area of Forest Reserves should actually be increased, not decreased.21 For this reason, there was a need to secure the tenure of lowland reserves, particularly in view of the high cost of hill logging, relative to the returns per hectare. Even without de-gazetting large blocks, the aggregate loss of innumerable small excisions could be substantial, warned the Report. It was advised that, in general, Forest Reserves should not be surrendered to agriculture unless the loss could be replaced with fresh allocations from State Land Forest. Second, attention was drawn to the recommendations of the Reid Commission for the Federal Constitution. Para. 89 read: ‘… [W]e would have had difficulty in recommending that land should be a State subject if we had not found it possible to combine this recommendation with another that the Federation should have all powers necessary to carry out in the national interest development schemes’. Furthermore, cooperation with the Federal government on matters of research, technical aid and finance was recognized to be advantageous to individual States. The Reid Commission intended forestry to be part of the programme of development, which made necessary a proportionate allocation of Federal finances.22 On the part of the Federal government, socio-political goals took precedence over long-term considerations of forest conservancy in Federal policy. Abdul Razak, the Minister of Rural Development, confronted the problem of rural poverty with the same vigour and determination as the challenge from the still

KWells_book_3.fm Page 268 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

268

lingering threat of Communist insurgency. Taking advantage of Article 92 (1) of the constitution empowering government to acquire land for development, he renewed the five-year-plan inaugurated in 1956 for rural development. 23 In 1960, the National Rural Development Council was formed. Acting through the Rural Development Executive Council that functioned as ‘the nerve centre of the rural offensive’, it coordinated the activities of Rural Development Committees at State and District levels.24 At State level, immediate development priorities and the opportunities it opened up for entrepreneurial activity overrode long-term considerations of forest sustainability. As such, plans for an NFP remained on the drawing board. In the meantime, although the State governments had accepted the IFP in principle, there was no proper enforcement. CR ISIS OF THE RUR AL LANDLESS

The global phenomenon of post-war population increase and economic reconstruction was reflected in widespread land hunger in the Peninsula and the escalation of shifting cultivation. A major problem was encroachment on Forest Reserves. Guided by a generally lenient government policy, in 1957, the Forest Department attempted to contain the problem by introducing a small pilot scheme among tobacco cultivators in Upper Perak, on the lines of the taungya system, for inter-planting yemane (Gmelina arborea) seedlings.25 A similar project, involving the planting of various Pinus species, was initiated among the swiddenmaking Orang Asli of the Tapah hills and in Kuala Kangsar district. 26 These schemes of limited success could not keep pace with the scale of illegal clearing in the State, which was not helped by the chronic post-war shortage of Forest Guards. Under the Malayan Union they constituted only 6 per cent of the total establishment. Their numbers continued to remain low due, partly, to the accelerated promotion of Malays to senior positions towards Independence. 27 The understaffed forest service was unable to cope with the explosion of illegal cultivation. In 1960, squatter clearings were reported in the Bintang-Hijau Reserve, important for Perak’s water supply. The problem of cassava planting, which invaded the protected Korbu, Pelus and Gunung Tunggal areas and the Kinta Hills, proved difficult to arrest, as did tobacco cultivation in Kuala Kangsar and Gerik, in Upper Perak. Over 12,000 ha of State Land and 2,000 ha of Forest Reserves were illegally cultivated and forest offences in the State rose from 290 in 1960 to 330 in 1962.28 Attracted by a guaranteed income of $80–160 for cassava and $280–400 for tobacco, per hectare, cultivators risked punishment whether in the form of court prosecution, compounded fines or the disastrous uprooting of crops.29 In Pahang, the Benom Forest Reserve was encroached upon, as were reserves in South Kedah. Reserves also faced insecurity because of the government’s rural development programme. In Melaka, despite timber shortage and the need for catchment protection, Forest Reserves were released for agriculture on the principle that the claims of the landless must take pre-

KWells_book_3.fm Page 269 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development at a Price: 1957–69

•

269

cedence over forestry.30 In Terengganu, where only 18 per cent of the State was under Forest Reserve, land development took a free hand.31 Landlessness was particularly acute in Kedah and north Perak. Under the pressure of coastal population growth, the forested hill region around Keruh (Pengkalan Hulu) and Baling was transformed into the new pioneer frontier. Settlers ranged from the few well-to-do land speculators and timber merchants to the more numerous peasants eking out a livelihood. Often, large groups undertook forest clearance.32 In the Keruh area speculators engaged the village poor at M$2 per day to clear forest land.33 Most clearings were planted with hill rice, cassava and maize, alongside permanent plots of rubber and fruit cultivation. In Kedah and Perlis, attempts by the Forest Department to suppress illegal planting met defiance. At Bukit Perenggan, Perlis, the Forest Department was powerless in the face of encroachment on Forest Reserves by paddy cultivators and community conflicts over water sharing.34 In Kedah, intimidation of forest officers became sufficiently serious to require the enlistment of police escorts. In the Telui Forest Reserve, settlers threatened to pull down the access bridge in an effort to debar forest officers from the area.35 A common strategy for evading prosecution was concealment, the stuff of ‘everyday forms of peasant resistance’ common in the region.36 The Forest Department resorted to poisoning crops with police help.37 In 1969, rice land and orchards in the Inas and Telui areas were earmarked for destruction.38 On occasions when offenders were apprehended and prosecuted, they paid the mandatory M$10 fine only to resume work promptly on the same unauthorized sites.39 Rural landlessness and the related scramble for land authorization gave rise to new forms of opportunism. In one instance, the head of a rural Malay community involved in clearing land in Telui Forest Reserve collected M$3 per head on the pretext of securing permits for occupation.40 The desperate plight of the landless provided ready meat for politicians. In 1965, the Forest Commissioner for Kedah expressed in confidence to the State Secretary his concern over illegal occupation, rampant in south Kedah and rapidly gaining ground in the north, sometimes with the support of politicians. He quoted instances when illegal occupation in Forest Reserves had won the endorsement of the Chief Minister through the mediation of a Member of Parliament, acting in the interests of his constituents.41 The frontier mentality, which gave precedence to practical reality over legality, found easy accommodation within restored traditions of Malay patron-client relations in the new climate of politics. Some applied for land permits on the basis of their membership of the ruling UMNO party, while still others challenged forest laws by tapping into influential connections. 42 In the absence of a land use policy and the reluctance of the Federal government to take direct action against illegal occupation in the face of the land crisis, individual States responded differently to the problem. Near Jelebu, in Negeri Sembilan, crops illegally cultivated in Forest Reserves by two Chinese were uprooted with the help of the police but this action met the disapproval of the

KWells_book_3.fm Page 270 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

270

Chief Minister.43 Contrastingly, in Perak, where the ruler’s reproof against unauthorized exploitation had gone unheeded, the Forest Department proceeded to uproot illegally planted cassava and tobacco and prosecuted those involved. 44 Through lack of coordination between agriculture and forestry, the all-out Federal effort to alleviate rural poverty by way of agricultural improvement betrayed weaknesses in planning and implementation. An important component of the First Malaysia Five-Year Plan, launched in 1966 (following the Second Malaya Plan), was the Jayaderi programme for achieving greater agricultural productivity, ‘concentrat[ing] development efforts in areas where physical infrastructure is already in place’.45 Linked with this programme of rural development was dam building for irrigation, which in most cases involved loss of Forest Reserves. A case in point was the large Muda irrigation scheme, initiated in 1964 with World Bank assistance, to promote double cropping in north Kedah and parts of Perlis. It inundated nearly 8,500 ha of Forest Reserve and other areas proposed for reservation. Logging was also accelerated, with nearly 18,138 ha of forest earmarked for harvesting over a two-year period.46 Ultimately, the Muda scheme was expected to render 22,017 ha of forest unexploitable as a result of inundation or inaccessibility.47 In 1966, logging in the catchments of the Muda and Pedu Dams48 probably affected run-off regimes. This, combined with the demands of irrigation for the paddy schemes and low rainfall accompanying the 1977 El Niño in the region, precipitated one of the worst water crises, with March the driest on record in the State.49 Some 20, 000 ha of off-season paddy were abandoned and there was an overall 12 per cent decline in production in the remaining areas. The irrigation water, meant to supplement rainfall by about 30 per cent for the off-season crop, was not sufficiently replenished and caused a 27.5 per cent drop in national rice production.50 Not least, the government programme for improved drainage, irrigation and double cropping made inroads into swamp forests, essential for moisture retention and protection against erosion.51 In Johor, the Drainage and Irrigation Department’s long-term scheme for bunding the west coast mangroves, converting them for second-quality agriculture, was at the expense of a lucrative fishing industry and firewood, charcoal and pole production.52 B O OM OR BUS T ?

In addition to launching the Green Revolution for improved rice productivity,53 rural development was boosted through large-scale clearance of inland forest for state-sponsored plantation agriculture. The largest of the development agencies, the Federal Land Development Agency (FELDA) formed in 1956 on the eve of Independence, was aimed at solving the problem of landlessness through developing the plantation sector under the five-year plans perceived as blueprints for development. The most successful development conglomerate, it converted over 54,000 ha of forest during the First (1956–60) and Second

KWells_book_3.fm Page 271 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development at a Price: 1957–69

•

271

(1961–65) Malaya Plans, under the direction of expatriate advisers.54 Under the subsequent Five-Year Malaysia Plans, FELDA made spectacular strides and, by 1990, had cleared over 847,000 ha of forest.55 Committed to rapid development, the land schemes took little account of the legacy of a forest protection programme, nurtured for over a half century. Generally, contrary to the principle enunciated in the IFP, excisions from reserves for development were not replaced. In Perak, up until 1965 there was no replacement for the thousands of hectares earmarked for excision. Rural development took a heavy toll on the forests of Pahang – the nation’s timber reservoir – and the State’s principal source of revenue.56 By 1958, pre-development logging pushed up Pahang’s production to an unprecedented level, accounting for onefifth of the Peninsular timber output, and registering a six-fold increase in the State revenues over the decade.57 Outpaced by land development, the area of fully constituted Forest Reserves in 1960 amounted to only 879,564 ha, or 24.5 per cent of the State’s total land area, falling short of the 30 per cent national target. Both in Pahang and in Terengganu, where just 14.8 per cent of the land was under Forest Reserves, hurried agricultural land conversion schemes accounted for a huge wastage of the less-marketable timber.58 International funding from agencies such as the IBRD relied on feasibility studies by especially commissioned consultants. These reports, based on soil, vegetation, drainage and topography, proposed a pattern of planned development but made limited provision for permanent forest cover. The largest project for oil palm cultivation, covering some 121,781 ha, was launched in Pahang by Jengka Triangle Complex or SJSB (Syarikat Jengka Sdn Bhd), with Majlis Amanah Rakyat (MARA) and the State government as the main shareholders.59 Much of the area consisted of small patches of swamp forest, interspersed among heavily timbered, near-climax dipterocarp forest, covering hill slopes. 60 A 1987 World Bank ‘Impact Evaluation Report’ observed that the Master Plan ‘considered environmental objectives only in terms of determining land capability’.61 Clearance began in 1968, before completion of the Jengka Master Plan62 and without the benefit of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), made mandatory in the Peninsula only in 1988. The Jengka Master Plan encouraged conformity with existing national guidelines, namely, the 1922 Silt Control Enactment and the 1960 Land Conservation Act prohibiting clearance on steep slopes. It did not, however, address the long-term impact of agricultural clearance on lowland forests and dependent tribal communities and wildlife. Despite FELDA’s efforts to coordinate with other agencies such as the DID, FRI and Wildlife Department, it lacked institutional capacity to translate policy directives into action.63 This was due largely to the diffusion of responsibility for environmental affairs across State and Federal agencies and the weakness of the Ministry of Science, Environment and Technology (MOSTE), created in 1974, largely to mollify environmentalists (see p. 312).

KWells_book_3.fm Page 272 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

272

The Jengka Triangle Project involved the excision of 75 per cent of the Jengka Forest Reserve, constituting a total area of 41,654 ha, after allowing for protection of river frontage and excluding steep land unsuitable for agriculture. The most serious problem arose from clearance of steep slopes, in contravention of existing legislation for protecting gradients exceeding 18.5 degrees. 64 In fact, some two-thirds of SJSB’s concession area for commercial logging was estimated to have comprised terrain with slopes over 40 degrees, which had serious environmental implications.65 The scheme displayed all the symptoms of environmental degradation that came to be associated with Malaysia’s rural development, such as flooding, water pollution, soil erosion and the loss of good arable land.66 In the main, the official policy, giving land development priority over forest protection, was generally endorsed by aid agencies. The Word Bank for its part had no environmental policy at the time the Jengka Triangle Complex was planned and implemented.67 In other instances, poor selection of development sites was attributed to politically inspired economic criteria taking precedence over physical conditions.68 In Terengganu, despite some 90 per cent of the State still under forest on the eve of Independence, the Dutch Technical Aid Mission (DTAM), which studied the economic potential of the State, recommended the suitability of 6,396 ha of the Rasau Kerteh Forest Reserve for oil palm cultivation.69 Although the 1967 agreement, signed on behalf of DTAM by the Netherlands Engineering Consultant (NEDECO), provided for a forest reconnaissance survey to demarcate Protection and Production Forests in the area, the terms of reference were biased towards rapid development.70 The lack of a holistic development programme, linking agriculture to the forest sector, was partly the outcome of policy advice from international agencies. The IBRD Report, for instance, had recommended that, apart from diversifying its cash crop economy, Malaysia should industrialize and expand its timber production, particularly for pulp.71 These economic functions were conceived as separate rather than interrelated. Again, the 1964 Paarlberg Report, submitted by a fact-finding Ford Foundation mission, recommended the development of forest resources in areas that would least interfere with agriculture, a view echoed in the Land Capability Classification (LCC) Report. Effectively, this meant that lowland forests would make way for development, relegating forestry to the hills.72 Such an outcome, successfully resisted in the pre-war era by the Forest Department, was now officially endorsed. Land development schemes outpaced the delayed completion of the LCC Committee report. When finally made available in 1970, it placed forestry in the lowest category of Class V, after mining and agriculture.73 Forests for soil conservation and security of water catchment were accorded the same status as those for game preservation and recreation. Provision was made for forest protection only when the land possessed no mineral, agricultural or timber potential. Director of Forestry, Abdul Majid Mohd Shahid (1966–72), noted with apparent

KWells_book_3.fm Page 273 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development at a Price: 1957–69

•

273

despair that the Department was ‘being pressurised to practice forestry in terrain not suitable for agriculture … ’.74 It implied potential appropriation by agriculture of all the productive lowlands. A 1966 projection by the Economic Planning Unit (EPU) of the Prime Minister’s Department predicted full ‘development’ of the lowlands, which implied the near disappearance of lowland forests within 30 years.75 Foresters feared that logging the hill forests, often on steep slopes and poorer in commercial species than lowland forests, presaged both technical difficulties and lower returns. Lowland clearance for agricultural development meant that the future of Forest Reserves – considered to have reached a stage of ‘dynamic equilibrium’ – was at stake. In Pahang, the State Forest Officer, Mohammad Harun Talib, reiterated the precepts of sound forestry. Forestry is farming with a difference. Whereas the farmer sows in the knowledge that he will reap before the year is out, trees take many years to reach maturity and there are very few timber crops which can be initiated and harvested in the working life of the forester. Therefore, the forester by his training, thinks not in seasons but in decades of years.76

The Peninsula’s population was expected to rise to some 28 million by the early decades of the twenty-first century. To meet its needs, the Forest Department estimated that the existing 2.2 million ha worked on a 70-year felling cycle would have to be increased to a minimum 3.2 million ha, or roughly between 17–25 per cent of the total land areaa.77 Sustainable production implied the coordination of State development activities with forest management, the absence of which was a source of demoralization within the forest service. Mahidin Mohammad Rashad, the SFO Negeri Sembilan, lamented that the aims and aspirations of the Department and the importance of forestry to the country were misunderstood by a large majority of the public. While conceding that the land development projects should be given priority, he emphasized the need for a National Land Use Policy. 78 The absence of one suggested the government’s clear intention of giving rural development a free hand. Consequently, neither was a national forest reservation policy put in place prior to land development nor land conversion coordinated with government plans for expanding the wood industry. Spurred by the rising demand and high market price for tropical timber and the large stocks available from land clearance, the government incorporated within the First Malaysia Plan (1966–70) a separate programme for developing the timber industry. Coordination with other ‘land users’, principally agriculture, was stated as a last, not a first principle. Furthermore, though controlled exploitation with sufficient safeguards against excessive exploitation was duly emphasized,79 it had little meaning on the ground. The Mid-Term Review of the First Malaysia Plan incorporated a scheme for galvanizing the timber industry, taking advantage of what was believed to be a ‘plentiful availability of natural resources’ and the industry’s demonstrated

KWells_book_3.fm Page 274 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

274

capacity to respond to demand.80 Appropriate to the plans for boosting downstream wood industries, the Forest Department was transferred, in 1967, from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Ministry of Mining and Land Affairs. Timber, together with rubber and pineapple production, identified as having a potential under the export sector, was brought within the purview of the expanded activities of the Malaysian Trade Commissioners’ Service.81 At the same time, to develop timber processing as a major industry, the export of round logs was discouraged.82 The location of the timber industry – as indeed of land development – predominantly in the forested heartland of the Malay-dominated east coast, held political implications. Bumiputera participation in the timber industry, which was slow to develop independently, was linked with land development under the umbrella of state sponsorship.83 To encourage Malay participation, in 1965 the Terengganu State government formed an Economic Development Corporation, the ironically named Pesaka [‘Heritage’] Terengganu Logging Company, to operate in areas earmarked for oil-palm cultivation.84 Likewise, to encourage bumiputera participation in the timber processing industry, the state-sponsored Jengka Timber Complex was formed in Pahang. 85 The project included an integrated plan for sustainable logging in those areas unsuited to agriculture. A subsidiary of MARA, it was placed in overall charge of the forest-products complex. The Canadian Transworld Technical Services Limited, Vancouver, was contracted to introduce modern logging and supervise the timber, sawmill and plywood industries. With over a thousand jobs targeted for bumiputera in the logging and processing industry, the large sum of M$35 million was invested, including a M$25 million loan from the World Bank. Based on maximum production capability rather than sustainability, a profit of M$7 million was expected by 1974–75.86 The high investment in equipment and the large borrowing meant intensive operations for achieving costeffectiveness, as against less intensive logging methods that characterized traditional Chinese logging operations. In accordance with these ambitious plans, during 1966–67 some 5,427 ha of logged forests were exploited followed by another 41,877 ha cleared the following year for planting and settlement. The Jengka Triangle Scheme demonstrated the prevalence of environmental risk. Logging in the area, which continued into the 1970s, involved the invasion of hilly terrain, unsuitable for agriculture and recommended by the feasibility study as best set aside as Forest Reserve.87 By now, the loss of forest to logging, development and illegal smallholder cultivation was a general phenomenon.88 Jacques Alfonse le Doux, a white settler in Kota Tinggi, Johor, observed with alarm the ‘jungle going by’ in passing timber lorries.89 In Pahang, some 16 logging licences were issued in 1964, covering an area of 33,184 ha, far exceeding the annual coupe recommended under the Working Plan of the Forest Department.90 In Kelantan, where some 72.6 per cent of the State was still under forest, illegal clearance paved the way

KWells_book_3.fm Page 275 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development at a Price: 1957–69

•

275

for subsistence agriculture and rubber cultivation.91 By the late 1960s excision of Reserved Forest reached a peak, with few replacements. Selangor lost 5,052 ha of the important Bukit Lagung Forest Reserve to State rural development schemes92 and, in Pahang, 1,399 ha of Tekam Forest Reserve were lost to a FELDA scheme. During 1965–66, large-scale exploitation took place in Tasik Berah Forest Reserve, ‘inadvertently opened … contrary to standing policy’93 and, in Perak, the important Terulak Forest Reserve was relinquished to FELDA. 94 As soil and topography were the main factors influencing land development, Melaka expected to lose all of its forests, except those covering the Batang Melaka catchment, crucial for providing water for the township’s fast expanding urban populace. But FRIM’s proposal that the area be saved was largely ignored, with adverse consequences.95 In 1969, only 7.6 per cent of the State was forested, affecting hydrological regimes. As well as importing its timber from other States, Melaka faced a serious water crisis. It became the task of the SFO, Muhammad Jabil, to seek the cooperation of the Chief Minister to retrieve Bukit Sedanan Forest Reserve from the proposed list for de-gazetting. 96 As in Melaka, under the blanket national policy for agricultural development, State governments through their control over land, emerged as powerful agents in determining the fate of the environment. During 1967–68 there was a 20 per cent increase in the production of wood in the Peninsula. About 65 per cent was extracted primarily from State Land on the east coast, principally Pahang, and the rest from the Reserved Forests of the other States. Between 1960 and 1967 exports in round logs tripled and total earnings from wood, by now the third largest after rubber and tin, rose from M$55.5 million to M$99.2 million.97 Though, in principle, log exports were prohibited, a restricted amount was allowed in response to the Japanese demand and oversupply for local mills, especially after 1963 when Sarawak and Sabah joined the Malaysian Federation. By 1968 Japan was the major importer of logs after Singapore, followed by Korea and Taiwan. 98 The industry’s focus was on sawn timber and, in 1968, the output of some 443 sawmills increased exports by 45 per cent over the previous year, with a corresponding 17 per cent rise in employment in the timber industry.99 In the following year, 74 per cent of the Peninsula’s log production was converted to sawn timber for export, mainly to Europe.100 Veneer-plywood production, too, increased from 465,000 sq m in 1957 to 1.3 million sq m in 1966.101 In 1967, export regulation and quality control, hitherto managed by the Forest Department, passed to the newly inaugurated Malaysian Timber Industry Board (MTIB). It would appear that the Board placed greater emphasis on export promotion, the organization of trade missions and efforts to create ‘a good image’102 than on coordinating consumer demands abroad with production at home. The government’s agenda for expanding the timber industry by doubling round-log production raised apprehension among foresters. The Chief Conservator saw the land alienation policy as putting future supply in jeopardy.103

KWells_book_3.fm Page 276 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

276

The push for increased output in some instances compromised sound silvicultural practices. Success of the Malayan Uniform System was contingent upon honouring the hallowed principle of permitting felling only after sampling was conducted to ensure that there was sufficient regeneration. However, as of 1966 some areas were opened up for exploitation, regardless of the level of regeneration. This meant greater investment in enrichment planting with nursery seedlings, to supplement existing natural regeneration of desired species from the irregular and short flowering and fruiting typical of dipterocarps. 104 Between Independence in 1957 and the beginning of the First Malaysia Plan in 1966, reservation in the hills was extended to compensate for lowland losses, with a marginal increase from 24.7 per cent to 26.5 per cent of the total land area.105 This, which included both Production and Protection Forests, fell short of the 25 per cent target set earlier by the IFP for Production Forest alone. At the same time, between Independence in1957 and the tail end of the First Malaysia Plan in 1969, State Land forests decreased from around 5. 5 million ha to just over 3 million ha.106 Paradoxically, forest loss to land development overlapped with the emergence of timber as a major revenue earner, forcing the Forest Department to turn its attention to the technical, silvicultural and ecological aspects of hill forest utilization.107 During 1957–61, P.F. Burgess investigated the prospects of hill logging.108 Contractors seeking improved opportunities readily adopted bulldozers and winch-lorries, which made hill logging feasible. But the Forest Department recognized its increased burden of responsibility for minimizing erosion, most serious during wet weather. By 1967, the anticipated problems of hill logging and the need for planned production qualified Malaysia for aid from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).109 Under the Forest Industries Development Programme (FIDP), a detailed forest inventory was completed with Canadian assistance. Other aspects of its brief included: a nationwide forest working plan for coordinating agricultural development with timber exploitation; appropriate planning for sustainable extraction; and improved silvicultural treatment to optimize productivity. On the basis of its investigations, FIDP warned that better planning and management in the forestry sector were imperative for sustaining productivity.110 It proposed a more centralized administration in which the States, while continuing to retain sovereign control over forests, would relinquish management to federal authority in the interests of the social betterment of the nation. Within such a framework the States would no longer be directly involved in issuing industrial permits but would, nevertheless, have a share in determining overall forest policy by representation on the NLC. To guard the interests of forestry in competition with other sectors, especially agriculture, a Forestry Commission was proposed with advisory functions and an executive role in implementing NLC decisions.111 FIDP’s proposals, which challenged the closely guarded independence of the States, raised the spectre of political tensions that the Federal government

KWells_book_3.fm Page 277 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development at a Price: 1957–69

•

277

could not risk. At the same time, without the fundamental safeguards recommended, the UNDP/FAO programme for upgrading and intensifying timber exploitation was potentially detrimental. Forest utilization proceeded on the basis of the LCC Report committed to ‘potential direct economic returns only’, as one forester later commented, without due regard for wood as ‘a national strategic product’.112 Acknowledging forestry’s decreasing claims in the lowlands, international aid agencies followed the drift of national policy and focused on hill forests. The high revenue potential from woodchip won research funding from UNDP/ FAO.113 A second project was aimed at coordinating government and nongovernment bodies for developing and improving the existing forest industries. 114 In view of the timber industry’s rapid expansion, an assessment of logging practices and related problems was initiated under Phase II of the UNDP/FAO programme during the duration of the Second Malaysia Plan.115 Integral to the programme was research on the utilization of unmarketable timber species and the improvement of logging, sawmilling and other wood-processing techniques. 116 These plans, aimed at maximizing efficiency and productivity came too late. By the time the relevant UNDP/FAO preliminary report was tabled at the end of 1970 – well ahead of the completion in 1974 of its research and field studies 117 – the first intensive phase of forest clearance was nearly over. The traumatic ethnic conflict of May 1969 committed the government to the New Economic Policy (NEP), which further marginalized scientific forest management. Aimed at restructuring Malaysian society by establishing greater social equity through poverty alleviation,118 the NEP removed all stops on rural development. In Pahang, with some 24.5 per cent of the Reserved Forest still intact, forest clearance for agriculture reached a feverish pitch. No less than 569 timber licences were issued in Pahang alone during 1969 to work 139,610 ha of forest, of which 39 per cent was primary. Harvesting was pushed well beyond the permissible annual cut set by the Forest Department.119 Under the shadow of the political crisis, the long-awaited enunciation of a NFP was shelved indefinitely. Instead, on the basis of the LCC Report that out of some 6.5 million ha of land suitable for agriculture only 2.8 million ha were under cultivation, IBRD recommended that the current rate of agricultural settlement be doubled by clearing a minimum 48,583 ha annually.120 During 1966–68 the Malaysian economy is estimated to have experienced an average 6.7 per cent annual growth, 2.2 per cent higher than the rate targeted by the First Malaysia Plan. Nonetheless, per capita GNP had increased only marginally and there was widespread poverty, especially among the majority Malay populace in the agricultural sector.121 Under rural development, a total of some 342,000 Malay families was identified as having either no land or possessing plots of inadequate size.122 Conceived as the blueprint for the New Economic Policy, the Second Malaysia Plan (1971–75) was declared the largest and most ambitious development project to date.123 Under it, land developed

KWells_book_3.fm Page 278 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

278

by FELDA more than doubled, to 166,847 ha compared with 72,423 ha during the previous Five Year Plan.124 The Second Malaysia Plan mentioned maintenance of Permanent Forest Estates (PFEs) for soil and water conservation and emphasized forest utilization, proposing reforestation as a means of compensating depletion. However, agro-forestry remained negligible in land development. Forestry was allowed just M$18.2 million out of a total allocation of M$1. 92 billion for agricultural development.125 Thus, in 1973, in addition to premiums and royalties, the government introduced a silvicultural cess on all timber extracted to secure revenues for reforestation.126 Consistent with timber’s high profile in the industrial sector, in 1971, the Forest Department, together with the Mines, Lands and Geological Survey Department, was placed under the Ministry of Primary Industries. Two years later, the Malaysian Timber Industry Act was passed. In 1972, the Federal Forest Department was expanded and a Director-General of Forestry superseded the Director of Forestry.127 Of the two Deputy Directors appointed, one headed Forest Operations, the other Research and Education. State Forest Officers were upgraded to State Directors of Forestry.128 These changes anticipated an upturn in the timber industry. SCIENCE, DE VE LOPMENT AND FOREST R Y

The poor integration of environmental safeguards into development programmes contradicted rising scientific awareness of the value of moist tropical forests. Early studies of rain forest ecology culminated in P.W. Richards’s seminal work, The Tropical Rain Forest, published in 1952, covering Africa, South America and the Asiatic tropics.129 Richards, in his presidential address to the British Ecological Society a decade later, singled out the tropical moist forests as providing some of the most striking examples of rapid seral progression, making it possible to study what determines the richness and dominance of species. 130 Knowledge of the phenomenon of rapid ecological change in the moist tropics, which Richards stressed, was of an earlier provenance. In the Peninsula, as we have seen, nascent forest ecology in terms of the interrelation between trees, soils and water regimes had formed an integral part of forest management before World War II. Invaluable and original data collected and published locally, but which had earlier escaped global science,131 now entered a wider international forum. Population growth and the concomitant loss of forests to accelerated development galvanized advances in the study of tropical forest ecology. It called attention to the centrality of forests to the essential concerns of climate, health and agriculture. Linking science and technology was acknowledged as fundamental to balanced development. This was made evident in the Secretary of State’s creation in 1942 of an integrated Committee for Colonial Agriculture, Animal Research and Forestry Research.132 In post-war Malaya, scientific and technical expertise to support development provided the impetus for tropical forest science

KWells_book_3.fm Page 279 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development at a Price: 1957–69

•

279

research. FRI resumed its pre-war links with the Botanic Gardens of Singapore, Bogor, Kew and Leiden for taxonomic collection and identification. The quintennial Commonwealth Forestry Conference was an important forum for discussing policies and technologies within a framework of development embedded in a colonial past.133 It complemented the Pacific Science Congress, a platform for addressing regional issues. FAO-sponsored international meetings and seminars offered other opportunities for discussing specific problems. 134 Also important was the participation of Malayan foresters in promoting rain forest research. In 1961, two years before the larger political entity of Malaysia emerged, the country became a participating member of the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission meeting at Dehra Dun. A Silvicultural Research Officer in FRI was appointed the coordinating secretary of its subcommittee on Silvicultural Systems for Lowland Tropical Rain Forests.135 In 1963 a symposium on vegetation of the humid tropics, one of a series organized by UNESCO through its Southeast Asia Office, was held in Kuching, Malaysia.136 It tabled a resolution for conducting ecological research in primary rain forest for collating information on the principal tree species. Due to serious staff shortage resulting from Malaysianization of the scientific and civil services, UNESCO technical assistance was sought.137 In 1965 a Colombo Plan plant taxonomist, T. C. Whitmore, was appointed to extend C.F. Symington’s pre-war survey of dipterocarps – widely adopted as a taxonomic source for the study of forest ecology – to other families. This initiative, in line with the need to utilize more tree species in the timber industry, was brought to fruition with the publication of the Tree Flora of Malaya.138 The inherent links between forest conservation and tropical land management rapidly shifted foresters into the arena of environmental advocacy that grew apace with post-war development. Symptomatic of the trend was the priority given to the protective over the productive functions of forests by the Chief Conservator, J.S. Smith. It is instructive to look back and see what the early foresters were faced with, and how they set about their work. They believed, just as we do now, that their first duty was to maintain enough land under forest to prevent erosion, silting, and flooding, to maintain water supplies, and to preserve climatic conditions, especially rainfall. All forestry is subservient to this primary need for Protection Forests as they are called. Their second duty was to ensure for the people an adequate and permanent supply of cheap timber, firewood and other forest produce through the medium of Productive Forests… [my emphasis]. 139

Furthermore, with the profound changes being brought to the forest by intensive logging, ecology gained a new relevance. Commenting on the ongoing scale of transformation, the Chief Conservator wrote: A change of this magnitude must inevitably bring in its train situations which are not found – or at least are not found to a serious extent – in the original forest. This is a task for the Ecologist … . For many years to come

KWells_book_3.fm Page 280 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

280

… the Ecologist must be looking in two directions, the more important being probably away from the new-type forests and back to the primal jungle.140

Understanding complex ecological processes within the rain forest became an indispensable reference point for forest management. In the past, foresters had been committed largely to evolving silvicultural practices to help the growth of commercial species by weeding out what were deemed ‘useless species’. Tropical ecology, which emphasized the importance of the forest as an integrated biological realm, generated fundamental changes to this perception. Apart from erosion and damage to the forest canopy as mechanical timber extraction extended into the hills, the impact of silvicultural management and timber extraction on other biological forms was realized to be important. At the crux of the new wave of international interest in tropical rain forest ecology was genetic diversity. The threat posed to its value resulted in the inauguration in 1964 of the International Biological Programme (IBP) of the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU).141 The project aimed at reconciling productivity with resource conservation in the moist tropics, where development posed the most serious threat to biological diversity. It was feared that the introduction of intensified agriculture, horticulture and silviculture, often involving the use of chemicals, could threaten gene pools, many of them still undiscovered.142 In 1967, the programme’s Malaysian Chapter for the Conservation of Terrestrial Biological Communities was initiated, with UNEP and UNESCO assistance, to study the energy budget of a block of lowland forest in the Pasoh-Tasik Berah area. The programme, led by the Forest Department, in collaboration with the University of Malaya, the Economic Planning Unit of the Prime Minister’s Department (EPU) and other government departments, made for an ideal start to cooperation between administrators, scientists and conservationists.143 Though everything hoped for may not have been achieved, the multi-disciplinary and international dimensions of the terrestrial programme benefited participating scientists.144 International biological cooperation was fostered at another level through the University of Malaya– Aberdeen University joint biological programme. Concerned specifically with graduate training, the programme helped staff FRI’s ecology project. 145 EDUCATION AND THE PUBLIC CONSCIENCE

Environmental awareness, though socially rooted, is irrevocably linked with state policy, politics and public advocacy. The last gained force in post-war democracies with advances in communication that facilitated the canvassing of public opinion and moral persuasion. Not surprisingly, by virtue of the close relation between science and post-war development, biologists and foresters brought their views and experience to bear on environmental advocacy. 146 On the part of foresters in the Peninsula, they called for state action to stem forest loss147 but realized the difficulty of achieving this without changing

KWells_book_3.fm Page 281 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development at a Price: 1957–69

•

281

social attitudes and promoting a sense of public stewardship. Colin Marshall, 148 an early exponent of ‘land use morality’, advocated that protection and management of land as a national heritage depended, apart from international aid, on extending environmental education throughout the spectrum of society. 149 Drawing lessons from the environmental impacts of poor land use in the USA, he emphasized the importance of public resolve. The erosion and destruction on a national scale of the natural resources … by unsuitable temperate European farming practices threatened to destroy the United States itself as it had other people.150

Marshall’s mid-century United Nations Fellowship tour of the Tennessee Valley Authority and other sites of land-use experimentation made him sharply aware of shortfalls in Malayan land use laws. The Land Code dealt mainly with tenure and hardly with maintenance of soil fertility through erosion control,151 and such laws as existed were not properly enforced. The Silt (Control) Enactment of 1922, which empowered DOs to act against transgressors, had failed to protect rivers from effluent generated by mining and poor land use.152 Marshall’s forebodings about the consequences of ill-managed development and the threat posed to man and biological life by water-borne sewage, chlorination, insecticide sprays and herbicides anticipated the influential writings of the 1960s (see p. 308).153 Like the conservationists of the 1930s who had evoked the ideology of a ‘national’ heritage, Marshall proposed education as the most effective means of incorporating within the ‘national ethics’ the morality of sustainable resource use.154 He highlighted the role of education for instilling the concept of environmental trusteeship. ‘The greatest power for good in this world – the idealism of youth – is waiting for us to harness it for the benefit of the future’, he declared. Yet schoolmasters and future citizens were being ‘educated away from the land’. The cleverest, most ambitious brains gravitate to law, to medicine, or to fundamental scientific research … . The best brains should be directed by schoolmasters to the practical tasks of developing regeneratively the renewable natural resources of the world. The greatest power for good in this world – the idealism of youth – is waiting for us to harness it for the benefit of the future.155

By the same token, in his 1952 address to the FAO Forestry Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Marshall introduced a resolution for UNESCO/FAO educational initiatives to promote national natural resource conservation. 156 Marshall’s call for external aid in environmental education exposed the deficiencies of the colonial school curriculum. No effort had been made to swap the poems of Wordsworth’s Cumbrian countryside for vernacular literature. The pantun, the popular Malay quatrain and Malay fables encapsulated the essence of rural life157 but did not provide a wide reference point for the citizenry at large. The situation was not helped by the failure of colonial educa-

KWells_book_3.fm Page 282 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

282

19. Lesser mouse deer: Tragulus javanicus (pelanduk, kancil) (K. Rubeli)

tion to instil a spirit of inquiry about the landscape surrounding everyday life. Fables relating to the cunning sang kancil (‘Mr Mouse Deer’), the lesser mousedeer (pelanduk), and its ability to outwit the tiger and the crocodile158 occasionally livened the classrooms of primary schools. These were practically the only references to forest life within the curriculum.159 The geography textbook published in 1918 by R.O. Winstedt and meant as a guide for Malay schoolteachers, was largely a fact sheet on climate, topography, plants, animals and people, aimed at defining the political boundaries of Malaya (Tanah Melayu) within the larger cultural realm of the Malay Archipelago.160 Geography textbooks for English-medium schools were, likewise, replete with facts and figures about the profitable tin and rubber industries. Though emphasizing the culturespecific Malay paddy farming, text books paid scant attention to the relevance of forests to the life of the nation. Only the socially disadvantaged aboriginal people and the outlaws of society, such as the Communists guerrillas, were perceived to be forest-dependent.161 The nascent conservation movement of the 1930s kindled some awareness among educational authorities about the merits of incorporating nature study within the curriculum of Malay education, though with the express objective of reinforcing the links of agriculture and forestry with rural life. 162 It was L.R. Wheeler, Assistant Inspector of Schools, Perak, who recognized nature study as having a broader role in schools. Nature study which develops the power of observation, deduction and appreciation of beauty, should receive more attention not only in

KWells_book_3.fm Page 283 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development at a Price: 1957–69

•

283

schools, but throughout the country generally…It evokes conversation and connects it with objects and sensations and not merely with books and words as is so often the case at present.163

Malay boys, like their older mentors, were keen bird keepers. They employed ingenious devices to trap emerald dove (punai tanah), red junglefowl (ayam hutan) and munias (pipit padi). Adults shot green pigeons (punai) while the young used ingenious methods to snare magpie robin (murai kampung) and strawheaded bulbul (barau-barau), a welcome relish for a bland diet of rice.164 Through his own interest in natural history, Wheeler introduced charts of birds, which he claimed Malay boys readily responded to.165 In the post-war years when education was revamped for the administrative and professional training of locals, Nature Study as a subject in schools gave way to laboratory-oriented General Science, bearing little relevance to Malayan fauna and flora. The contributions of Dobby, Stamp and Fisher to regional geography for tertiary education were development oriented, focused on productivity and resource extraction without the vital discourse on sustainability and conservation.166 Instruction in synecology (the inter-relation between the physical environment and biological communities), introduced in the 1956 Biology Syllabus,167 was severely hampered by insufficient staff trained in ecology and lack of suitable texts and provision for fieldwork.168 What should be remembered, however, is that these were early days for nature study even in British schools.169 To remedy this shortfall, education and advocacy became key motifs in post-war environmentalism. The 1947 Fontainebleau meeting, under the flagship of the International Union for the Protection of Nature (IUPN) and UNESCO, representing 31 nations, ‘resolved to work for the entire world biotic community or man’s natural environment which includes the earth’s renewable natural resources’. This inferred a strong commitment to the nations of the South, where the vulnerable tropical environment, population explosion and economic transformation following decolonization put some of the richest natural resources at maximum risk. In 1956, at a meeting in Edinburgh, the IUPN changed its name to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and organized its activities through three main Commissions, for Ecology, Species Survival and Conservation Education. Operating as a quango ‘with discreet access to highly diverse sources of intelligence and support worldwide’, IUCN became the linchpin for the new global environmental movement.170 At its 1954 meeting in Copenhagen, the IUCN urged nations and rulers to follow the advice of ‘biological scientific boards and unofficial associations’ for promoting optimum use of natural resources. Earmarked for special attention was the Asia-Pacific region, with two-thirds of the world’s population and leaders who were preoccupied with problems of self-rule and national development. 171 Responding to the resolution tabled by Marshall in 1952, the IUCN pledged to work in conjunction with UNESCO for the purpose of integrating the interests

KWells_book_3.fm Page 284 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

284

of development and environment via education. Governments were advised to inculcate, at all levels of education, the principle of long-term development and conservation of natural resources; instil appreciation of the objectives of forestry; maintain both productive and protective forests; and take steps to create national forest parks to serve as centres of recreation and con-servation.172 The last received an additional boost with the creation of IUCN’s Fourth Commission for National Parks at its 1960 meeting in Warsaw.173 The landmark 10th Pacific Science Congress held in Honolulu, Hawaii, during August–September 1961, articulated a new regional commitment to environmental conservation. Governments were urged to ‘encourage and support museums as basic elements in the education system’. Accelerated development and a general consensus on the deterioration of natural resources in tropical Southeast Asia drew attention to the need for fundamental provisions. These included inventories of rare and vanishing flora and nature protection in general; the creation of refugia, national reserves and parks; and technical backup and training. Working on the principle that ‘it is a matter of scientific, economic, and cultural importance, national prestige, and international responsibility for a nation to preserve intact the native animal fauna’, the Congress resolved to protect a number of species. Among these was the Sumatran rhinoceros, of which a residual population of 30–50 was estimated to be still remaining in the Peninsula. Attention was also drawn to the ecological consequences of toxic chemicals (sodium arsenite) used in silvicultural operations in Malaya on small animals and avian fauna.174 The far-sighted policies of the Congress were particularly evident with reference to its initiatives regarding nature parks, preparatory to IUCN’s First World Conference on National Parks in July 1962, in Seattle, Washington. Malaya, as an independent nation, made its debut in the new international theatre of environmental negotiations, represented by a joint government–NGO delegation.175 Regional initiatives paralleled the Seattle conference. In February 1962 the UNESCO Southeast Asia Science Co-operation Office (SEASCO), Jakarta, in conjunction with the Council of Sciences and the Research and Forestry Divisions of the Department of Agriculture, Indonesia, convened a meeting at Ciawi, near Bogor, Java. With the exception of Australia, representation foreshadowed the present ASEAN composition. The meeting’s objective was to implement the resolution of the 10th Pacific Science Congress through a Regional Working Party of SEASCO. Chaired by the IUCN representative and renowned conservationist, Boonsong Lekagul of Thailand, the Working Party’s brief was to pool regional initiatives by drawing together existing conservation programmes, both of individuals and organizations. At the end of 1965, IUCN with the National Research Council of Thailand, FAO and UNESCO, organized the first Conference on Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources in Tropical Southeast Asia, in Bangkok. Under a UNESCO Working Group on Conservation, special teams were formed to look into education, legislation and protection as they

KWells_book_3.fm Page 285 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development at a Price: 1957–69

•

285

pertained to conservation and other topics of regional concern, specifically the harmful use of pesticides and indiscriminate natural resource exploitation.176 International concerns resonated with the initiatives of a small but proactive local community of scientists. A cross-section of foresters, game wardens, academics and members of research departments who felt unable to influence government policy in their professional capacity resolved to preach the gospel of conservation through the Malayan Nature Society (MNS), reconstituted in 1948.177 Representative of this pioneer group included the forester, J. Wyatt-Smith; P.R. Wycherley of the Rubber Research Institute; M.E.D. Poore, a botanist; E.J.H. Corner, Director of the Singapore Botanic Gardens; H.E.McClure, a zoologist; and H.J. Kitchener and J.A. Hislop, successive Chief Game Wardens. Early indigenous leadership for the MNS came from Sir Mahmud Mat, ex-Malayan Civil Servant and Menteri Besar of Pahang (1948–53). He was founder Chairman of the Pahang Branch of MNS (1948–53) and shared with Loke Wan Tho the VicePresidency of the Society (1963–68).178 The forest botanist, Wong Yew Kuan, was the first Malaysian to be elected President (1965–66) and was succeeded by the zoologist, E. Balasingam (1966–67), who played a significant role in promoting conservation education.179 The MNS reflected ‘a new consciousness of the limitless interest and quiet pleasure that can come from observation and study of plant and animal life’, sustained during the war in the prisoner-of-war camps of Singapore and Thailand.180 The Society served as an important mouthpiece for environmental issues during the Emergency when censorship precluded revival of the pre-war press debates. Preservation of nature monuments by the Society’s members included Penang Hill by Gerald Hawkins; the Ipoh limestone hills by Betty Molesworth Allen; and Batu Caves by Elliot McClure. The pre-war campaign to promote nature as a national heritage, now championed by the MNS, had political implications. No one was more sensitive to this than High Commissioner Sir Gerald Templer, entrusted with the formidable task of building a sense of common citizenship to counter the Communist threat and divisive communal politics. He fostered a programme for enhancing knowledge and pride of heritage, both of nature and history, symbolized by the inauguration of the twin monuments: the National Museum in Kuala Lumpur and Templer Park on the outskirts of the capital.181 The park was gazetted by the Selangor Government with the support of the Sultan of Selangor and the Yang di-Pertuan Agung and opened to the public in May 1954. Covering some 1,620 ha, with 162 ha marked out as jungle reserve, it was administered by the Ministry of Rural Development under the agency of a voluntary organization, the Friends of Templer Park, formed in October 1955. Though bearing the scars of logging and mining activities, its location on the main north-south trunk road offered ready access for public recreation and education.182 While the MNS made a small beginning in fostering environmental awareness among the urban populace, the rural masses were seemingly more difficult to influence. However, Colin Marshall was more optimistic. He envisaged the

KWells_book_3.fm Page 286 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

286

introduction of environmental stewardship at grass-root level as fully in tune with the new democratic processes of government, particularly among an indigenous people whose culture was embedded in decentralized village administration. Under such a system, he argued, force would be unnecessary, guards and inspectors redundant, and civil servants required to act merely as trustees of the people. 183 In reality, State sponsorship of mega-plantation development shaped an opposite scenario, crippling initiative and independence. Improved incomes and the eradication of poverty on a model that was hard to emulate were bought at the cost of self-determination, which alone can breed sound practices of land use. 184 Despite FELDA’s laudable aims at the outset of encouraging self-dependency,185 there was little opportunity for initiative and innovation under a system branded by some as paternalistic. The rapid erosion of pre-existing traditions of sustainable smallholder agriculture gave way to tightly state-managed and regimented plantation production.186 Such mega-plantations undermined the initiative of settler communities and challenged environmental imperatives. Formal instruction on environment and conservation, more urgent than at any other time before, was low on the list of priorities for a government grappling with the task of upgrading rural education and implementing Bahasa Malaysia as the national language.187 However, by the 1960s there was a move towards improving the quality of geography teaching, with emphasis among other things on fieldwork.188 Malaysia also joined the ranks of the developing countries in acknowledging the importance of science in the school curriculum for understanding problems such as water pollution, soil erosion and disease control. With the cooperation of the UK Overseas Development Authority (ODA), teachers were acquainted with the Scottish Integrated Science Programme and Nuffield Science. Designed fundamentally for Western industrial situations, the programme proved ill-conceived and was poorly adapted to the needs of the rural populace most affected by the rapid transformation of the environment. 189 In 1969, Wycherley proposed nature education as a task for the Game Department. He envisaged that a scientific branch of the Game Department, equipped with science-trained Rangers for promoting nature conservation through schools, universities, societies, clubs and the mass media would not only contribute to nature preservation but also enhance recreation and national pride.190 Given the low value attached by the government to the Game Department, other than its role in crop protection (see below), Wycherley’s proposal fell on dead ground. This left environmental education to the efforts of the MNS, supported by other NGOs that emerged later. By the 1960s the MNS committed itself to ‘establishing a body of opinion ready to assist’ in formulating conservation policy. The importance of wise environmental management in an era dedicated to human progress was well summarized by E.J.H. Corner, a founder member of the MNS: ‘In all walks of life the humanising influence is emerging, and conservation is the concern of progress’.191 The significance of tropical conservation in this context, enunci-

KWells_book_3.fm Page 287 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development at a Price: 1957–69

•

287

ated by the eminent Malesian plant-geographer, C.G.G.J. van Steenis, sounded the clarion call for the historic rain forest movement of the latter half of the twentieth century. He highlighted the unique flora, rare plant communities and unmatched diversity of species in the Malesian region. A threat to them, through destruction of the forests, he warned, would change the balance between humans and nature, and affect man’s destiny. In Java the lowland forests and swamps had nearly all been destroyed, as had forests elsewhere in the region. In Singapore, all that remained of a number of unique species discovered by pioneer science were museum specimens. It was incumbent upon countries like Malaya, with large tracts of ‘primitive so-called “climax vegeta-tion”’ to set aside large areas as nature reserves, argued Van Steenis. [A] far-sighted Government policy simply cannot afford not to take wide measures of conservancy and should undertake the permanent propaganda which belongs to it.192

The MNS was faced with the difficult task of changing the mindset of the urban populace whose social values were wealth oriented. R.E. Holttum 193 recalled the difficulty in explaining to Singapore magistrates the damage done by tree cutting.194 Or, as Hawkins pointed out, even where proper legislation for environmental protection existed, such as the 1960 Land Conservation Enactment, there was an absence of will for enforcement.195 Indeed, Van Steenis commented upon the futility of laws and regulations unless nature preservation lived in the minds of the people.196 H.B. Gilliland, Professor of Botany at the University of Malaya, Singapore, proposed field excursions as an effective means of fostering a love of nature.197 With the advantage of teachers and academics forming a distinct strand in the Nature Society’s membership, schools were targeted for educating future citizens on environmental stewardship. Through children, the MNS hoped to reach out to parents and older members of society. To assist school natural history groups, the Selangor Branch of the MNS set up a small lending library of useful reference works, housed in the Society’s office in Muzium Negara.198 A total of 161 entries that the Society received for the 1969 school annual essay competition and its ‘Talks for Schools’ programme199 spoke for a promising start in the crusade for greater environmental awareness. TOWARDS MULTI-PUR P O SE PAR KS AND RESER VES

Environmental protection inevitably drew attention to the poor state of wildlife administration. Under the 1948 Federal constitution, the central government took control of policy matters affecting fauna, assigning executive powers to individual States that showed little enthusiasm for wildlife management. Selangor and Negri Sembilan had, as an economy measure, dispensed with the services of a Game Warden, while Kelantan, Terengganu and Kedah never had one. 200 This left the Game Warden with no effective control over wildlife outside the King George V National Park, renamed Taman Negara (the National Park) after Independence.201

KWells_book_3.fm Page 288 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

288

It was the evolution of a broader outlook within the scientific community that rescued wildlife administration from obscurity and neglect. The common threat posed by accelerated development to all biological life helped close ranks between the Forest and Game Departments. The path to reconciliation was laid by staff shortage during the immediate post-war years when wildlife administration was temporarily placed under the Forest Department,202 with foresters sometimes taking on the additional task of Game Wardens.203 In 1952, when the future of the Game Department came under review, a radical shift in forestry’s attitude was reflected in Shrubshall’s support for the notion of a separate Game Department, in line with the recommendations of IUCN and UNESCO for game protection. India and Ceylon had promptly responded by the inauguration of separate Game Departments.204 In the Peninsula, the idea generated enthusiasm for the pedagogical value of wildlife and game parks, reflected in the inclusion of an educational representative on a special committee formed to review wildlife administration.205 The task of the proposed Federal Game Department was identified with nature park management for boosting public interest. Natural Parks can play a valuable part in the training of youth to acquire self-reliance, and in bringing city-bred children to an understanding of the countryside and natural life.206

Also emphasized was the long-term value of nature parks for fauna preservation and scientific study, outdoor training and recreation. The vision of wildlife administration in the wider sense, extending beyond protection to the study of animal ecology, was clearly taking shape in the minds of some individuals. 207 The prospect of indirect economic benefits to be accrued from efficient Federal crop protection and revenue earnings from gun licences was crucial in winning support from other sectors of rural administration, namely, Agriculture, Forestry, Drainage and Irrigation, Veterinary Services and Fisheries. 208 In 1955, the Wild Life and Game Protection Ordinance was enacted 209 and, importantly, the salaries for State Game Wardens, a matter that had dampened enthusiasm for wildlife protection in some States, became a Federal responsibility. Fundamentally, there was a clear dichotomy between thinking at Federal and State levels. State interest in fauna preservation was based on the criteria that ‘a service devoted to an ethical objective with no revenue-producing potential worth mentioning, should be entirely federal …’.210 Although the new Ordinance extended uniform laws, it allowed some latitude for local initiative. States could make their own regulations provided these strengthened Federal provisions. They could, for example, exercise the prerogative of withholding hunting licences in the interest of bringing more species under protection. 211 Adoption by the States of the Game Ordinance was slow.212 Moreover, despite the laudable aims set for the Game Department, its incorporation with the Forest Department into the Ministry of Agriculture obviated its integral function of wildlife conservation.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 289 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development at a Price: 1957–69

•

289

The ‘dire need’ for wildlife protection, which the MNS drew attention to on the occasion of its 21st anniversary in 1961,213 attested to how little the Federal Game Department was able to do to reduce the impact of industrial and agricultural growth on wildlife. The alarming state of wildlife administration was brought to light by a survey conducted during 1966–68, by W.E. Stevens, a Canadian Colombo Plan ecologist. The report’s criticism centred on LCC’s failure to make provision for the conservation of wildlife in the lowlands below about 600 m, where more than 80 per cent of the Peninsular mammal species was confined.214 Consequently, there was the real danger that, with the exception of the National Park covered by a special act, existing sanctuaries could disappear. By and large, the 20 Reserves and Sanctuaries for wildlife and birds, though comprising an impressive 6 per cent of the land area, were in a state of neglect. The Cior Game Reserve, in the Pelus valley, Perak, had deteriorated to such a degree that it no longer served its purpose.215 In Pahang, development was closing in on the Kerau Game Reserve. In 1962, Oliver Milton had proposed upgrading it to a national park, extending its western boundary to include the salt licks crucial for the survival of the seladang community. Instead, the proposed area was assigned to FELDA for rubber planting, and loggers and jelutong tappers had invaded the reserve itself. In Johor, the Segamat Wildlife Sanctuary and the western portion of the Endau-Kota Tinggi Reserve in Johor had suffered the inroads of mining and agriculture.216 The former had succumbed to timber extraction on the eastern end and prospecting in the west. In the north, land was alienated for oil palm plantations and road construction for access to south Pahang for timber extraction.217 Overall, Stevens pressed for the creation of new reserves, adequately protected by legislation, to pre-empt species extinction,218 validating the general plea of conservationists. Besides the threat to Wildlife Reserves and Sanctuaries, the excision of Forest Reserves during the course of land development directly affected wildlife, particularly when the area included a salt lick. Apart from the seladang in the Cior Game Reserve endangered through destruction of their salt lick, in the Sungkai Game Reserve, also in Perak, seven out of a relic population of twelve seladang died from eating herbage sprayed with sodium arsenite.219 Rural development projects often left game herds stranded in patches of forest. The Jengka Development Project, for example, had displaced an estimated 5 rhino and some 24 elephants.220 The Game Department’s proposal that it vet sites before alienation for agriculture was ignored.221 Even those forest areas that escaped conversion to plantations were often degraded by logging and offered less than ideal conditions for wildlife. The Game Department drew no support for its proposal to involve biologists in the designation of logging areas and to intersperse plant species beneficial to animals within Production Forests.222 Elephants, which normally lived within a range of 250–500 sq km per herd of 8–10 animals,223 were among the worst affected by mega-clearance in the

KWells_book_3.fm Page 290 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

290

lowlands, which fragmented or destroyed their habitat. Some retreated with the Orang Asli into Upper Perak, south Kelantan and Hulu Terengganu, thriving on disturbed and successional vegetation created by shifting cultivators. 224 Here, in the upland valleys, logging and dam construction caught up with the beleaguered elephants, destroying their habitat, including salt licks. The Game Warden of Perak noted that the proposed Kuala Kenering Dam, for example, would submerge 10 important salt licks. The fate of the remaining herds was even more precarious. In conflict with humans, with whom they had once shared the flood plain habitat, they were hard pressed to find sanctuary even in Forest Reserves where silvicultural operations eliminated the palms and herbaceous plants they relished.225 E.C. Foenander proposed culling elephant herds to keep numbers within viable limits of the shrinking habitat, after the Ugandan example.226 Such a measure was soon found to be unnecessary as the combination of food shortage and habitat loss resulted in crop raids and extermination of rogue animals. Between 1960 and 1968, the elephant population of the Peninsula is estimated to have fallen from 692 to 486.227 With an annual average of 15 shot for crop protection by the Game Department alone, their numbers continued to decline. Extensive land clearance in Johor and Pahang, in particular, threatened elephant populations.228 The situation forced a change in policy by the Chief Game Warden, Mohamed Khan Momin Khan, who initiated an elephant welfare unit for translocating ‘troublesome’ elephants.229 Providing refuge in sanctuaries and reserves for reduced numbers became the only means of guaranteeing their survival without putting agriculture at risk.230 Also threatened were sambar deer, kijang or barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak) and serow (kambing gurun: Capricornis sumatraensis). The number of hunting licences doubled during the First Malaysia Plan, suggesting increased hunting with the spread of land development schemes.231 By the 1960s, due to the heavy run on deer by hunters, a complete closed season was declared in some States.232 The introduction of the ‘infernal contraption’, the steel-wire noose, an adaptation of the Malay jerat or rattan noose, is believed to have accounted for the demise of many mammals and the wounding of tigers, which then turned man-eaters.233 The motives of quick gain, lack of civic consciousness and ‘appalling apathy’ among ordinary citizens are alleged to have aggravated the impact of development on wildlife. Wildlife laws were generally ineffective due to staff shortage234 and triggerhappy Control Officers engaged in crop protection. According to one cynical view, two such officers employed by the Game Department had done such a good job of eliminating the alleged threat posed by ‘rogues’, ‘vermin’ and ‘nuisance animals’ that they eventually ‘worked themselves out of a job’. Furthermore, shortage of trained manpower for research precluded data collection on population dynamics and habitat relationships, so vital for administrative decisions on control programmes. According to the Chief Game Warden, the Depart-

KWells_book_3.fm Page 291 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development at a Price: 1957–69

•

291

ment also had insufficient say in the selection of staff for training ‘on the basis of individual merit and not on status’.235 Commenting on ways of improving wildlife management, Stevens recommended the culling of deer and pig to curb their rising numbers as scrub expanded. For the rest, he concluded: ‘The real secret is in segregation, no elephants in the oil palm and no oil palm in the reserves and parks’. 236 This pragmatic view, which had led to the formation of King George V National Park, was still widely acknowledged as the best formula for reconciling wildlife preservation with the priorities of development, including public education, recreation and tourism. The concept of multi-purpose parks, which inspired the original campaign for a national park, gained increased relevance under accelerated development. The Peace Corps Volunteer, Bruce Weber, who made a proposal in 1968 for a national park system, stressed the role of forests for the advancement of development-related research. It was argued that by acting as reservoirs of rare and threatened species and genetic material forests provide ‘extensive outdoor laboratories’ for ecological studies, contributing towards a better understanding of the natural laws relating to resource management.237 Neither Stevens nor Weber, however, took account of Orang Asli claims on parks and reserves. Within the existing situation, there was provision for the resident human population only in Taman Negara, inhabited by the Batek, and in the Kerau Game Reserve, occupied by the Jakun and Che Wong. In Taman Negara, barring a ban on trade in forest produce and the use of firearms, these communities enjoyed free use of park facilities.238 In the Sungkai Game Reserve, rights of access to Orang Asli from the adjoining Aboriginal Reserve were limited to fruit and rattan collection. Evidence of the satisfactory coexistence of humans and wildlife in reserves won the Orang Asli the Game Department’s favour. In Pahang, the Deputy Game Warden, C.S. Ogilvie, developed a special interest in the Che Wong.239 However, in so far as game parks and reserves had specific functions, the notion of their multi-purpose use was destined to be problematic, particularly with reference to the claims of Orang Asli communities and the protection of threatened species such as seladang and rhinoceros. The seladang population, estimated at about 700 in the early 1960s, had been reduced probably by half in less than a decade.240 By 1971, it was believed to have disappeared totally from Selangor and Negeri Sembilan, with only a few animals left in Johor and Terengganu.241 Pertinent to their reduced numbers had been the gradual move of Orang Asli and Malays from shifting to sedentary cultivation and the consequent reduction in scrub, congenial to seladang.242 The situation was not helped by the flooding of salt licks by hydroelectric dams and the intrusion of logging and other activities into their customary haunts. The continued belief in the efficacy of rhinoceros horn and other animal parts as pharmaceuticals contributed to the tragic decline also in the rhino population. It is estimated that by the end of the 1960s there remained no more

KWells_book_3.fm Page 292 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

292

than 20.243 Poaching was rampant and such laws as existed for protecting endangered species proved difficult to enforce. In September 1970, one of the few remaining Sumatran rhinos was shot dead in Kampung Tasik Cina (about 32 km from Pasir Mas in Kelantan). In this case the villagers took the matter into their own hands without informing the Game Department of any sightings or potential threat. The editorial of the Malayan Nature Journal spoke of a need to ‘re-educate the people’ if the survival of the Sumatran rhino were to be ensured. 244 Strengthening the call for nature reserves was the conviction among foresters that the Reserved Forests would become even less suitable for wildlife as logging extended into the hills, increasing damage to habitat.245 Study of a 40-ha plot of lower hill forest in Terengganu by P.F. Burgess, for example, demonstrated that logging destroyed 55 per cent of the basal area of the stand. 246 The profound implications to science of the destruction of natural habitat prompted the forest botanist, J. Wyatt-Smith to pioneer a visionary scheme for the preservation of representative samples of ‘natural arboreta’, classified as ‘Virgin Jungle Reserves’ (VJR). Introduced in 1949, it involved the selection of small plots in sample habitats.247 By 1970, a total of 81 VJRs had been declared. However, in view of the restricted size of VJRs for providing sanctuary to animals,248 ecologists pressed for nature reserves to fulfil a wider range of functions. As the eminent botanist, B. C. Stone put it: What then are the National Parks? Are they tourist attractions? Are they holiday and picnic spots? Are they game reserves? Are they watersheds? Yes, they are all of these. But most important, they are national resources. That is, they are parts of the original country. They are the nearest we will ever get to Eden.249

This vision of parks encapsulating nature was to gain strength among the rising middle class,250 its material betterment bought, paradoxically, at the cost of a vanishing forest. REINVENT ING EDEN

British efforts to achieve agricultural self-sufficiency through committing the rural Malays to rice cultivation reinforced the ‘kampung sanctuary’ at the root of traditional Malay institutional structures.251 Thus, though the origins of Malay nationalism were anchored in the urban capitals of print and communication, it was the kampung that served as the metaphor for Malay cultural heritage. Life there, interposed between the forest and the river, represented the inherent tension between the kindness and cruelty of nature, heightened by new economic challenges. Shahnon Ahmad’s Ranjau Sepanjang Jalan (No Harvest but a Thorn) published in 1966 portrays the life of a peasant farmer who finds solace in the complementarities of the golden paddy fields surrounding his homestead and the green hills beyond, clothed in merbau, meranti and leban (Vitex spp.).252 All the same, he lives in fear of pests that threaten his crops and the tiger that lurks in the scrub. To fend them off he engages Tok Bomo, the

KWells_book_3.fm Page 293 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development at a Price: 1957–69

•

293

village medicine man, to offer food to the resident spirit of the rice fields. 253 While nothing of the ambivalence of nature has changed, life is made increasingly hard by land fragmentation as a consequence of population growth and the restraints on free access to new land.254 Upstream, the Chinese shopkeeper retains his economic grip, as does his clansman downstream, receiving arecapalm trunks from the Malay peasant, desperate for cash.255 The solution to rural poverty, as understood by the post-colonial government, was the relocation of the peasant to ready-carved and centrally managed spaces of plantation agriculture that, hitherto, he had judiciously avoided. Mohamad Said in his Memoirs vividly recalls the consequent abandonment of the rural idyll, like his own in Linggi, Negeri Sembilan. Here uncultivated fruit trees and the berry-laden bushes that once attracted myriad birds had given way to lateritic roads and geometrically ordered settlements. All that remain of the once teeming wildlife are the dusty horns of seladang and deer that adorn abandoned kampung dwellings.256 Memories of tigers and civets (musang: Viverridae)257 that plagued villages not long ago, now pass for anecdotes. The landscape of rice fields and orchards, melding into the forest edge, represent a way of life that could not be replicated away from the familiar contours and colours of nature. The fragments of neglected green fields and abandoned orchards by the coast and riverside evoke nostalgia for a bygone era. Allusions to a fast disappearing way of life in the kampung haunt the modern pantun.258 The new settlements, set in remote desert-like clearings surrounded by the monotony of neatly planted expanses of oil palm and rubber, posed health and mental hazards.259 It is hardly surprising that the gift of viable plots of land did not arrest the drift of population, especially of the young, to urban centres. The crisis of a changing rural landscape inspired a re-evaluation of nature and environment and contributed to Malay intellectual ferment. In Kesasterawanan: Kepolitikan, Kealaman, Kedirian, Kemanusiaan [Literary Writers: Politics, Environment, Self-Reliance and Humanity], Shahnon Ahmad posits nature as a spiritual and material force central to the affairs of society.260 Nature, which once conveyed awesome overtones of magic and mystery, is interpreted in the simple terms of God’s creativity to nourish body and soul. The continued wasting of essential natural resources at the present rate, he reminds, can only result in the earth’s ultimate degradation, leaving it bankrupt of life force. 261 Far from evoking destructive greed, it is appropriate that nature should serve as the source of inspiration to writers, bringing them closer to the inner spirit binding humanity with the natural world.262 Rationalization of the utilitarian and spiritual aspects of human relations with nature, once indivisibly part of indigenous life and identity, engendered a fresh outlook. The burgeoning urban middle class, which included an increasing number of Malays as a consequence of the NEP,263 began to view parks and access to open spaces as fundamental to an improved quality of life. Influenced by Western education that attenuated the barriers of colour and creed, they

KWells_book_3.fm Page 294 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

294

came to share a common interest in nature conservation and its value in terms of health, recreation, national heritage and the global environment. The MNS offered a compelling attraction for the growing number of young, tertiaryeducated Malaysians264 who found aesthetic fulfilment and adventure in weekend and holiday excursions to the hills, forests and suburban parks. Childhood pastimes, furtively pursued in the backyards of townships and around the kampung,265 were realized in adult life by way of outdoor pursuits that improved standards of life had made possible. Descendants predominantly of the very class of early immigrants who in their struggle for a livelihood had contributed to the despoilment of nature, they now felt the mounting pressure of crowded urban environments as social expectations rose. Membership of the Nature Society, fewer than 700 in 1962, 266 rose to some 1,000 in 1980 and tripled over the next decade.267 Though constituting only a fraction of the nation’s population, the Society was representative of a fastexpanding, educated Malaysian middle class, committed to leading the crusade for protecting the nation’s natural heritage. Included within its members were scientists-cum-civil servants, academics and teachers holding senior positions in government and statutory bodies. Gradually replacing the expatriate pioneers of the Society as Malaysianization proceeded, they were potentially influential in bringing scientific concerns to bear on public policies and plans. 268 By the last quarter of the twentieth century, national planning in the developing countries, as A.F. Robertson observed, had ‘the appearance of a sprawling and amorphous mass of schemes and projects, competing doctrines and policies, ramifying national and international bureaucracies…’. 269 Malaysia was no exception. Within the flurry and confusion, a small but informed group of conservation-minded citizens had emerged with the will to challenge shortterm political and economic goals. N OTES 1 2 3

4

5 6

M.E.D. Poore, ‘Vegetation and flora’, in Wang Gungwu (ed.), Malaysia: A Survey, London: Pall Mall Press, 1964, p. 53. Walton, ‘Land Planning and Forestry’, pp. 213–214 Educated in Edinburgh University, Shrubshall joined the Malayan Forest Service in 1924 and was described as ‘essentially the practical forester who is happier studying his forests from a jungle camp than theorising about them at his desk or in the comfortable surroundings of a fashionable club’. Anon, ‘Retirement: Edward John Shrubshall’, Malayan Forester, 19 (1956) pp. 2–3. Shrubshall’s Interim Forest Policy was subsequently published by the Forest Department as Some aspects of forest policy in the Federation of Malaya, Research Pamphlet, No. 25, Kuala Lumpur, 1959. It became the basis for the ‘Report of the Forest Policy Working Party’, 23 Oct. 1959, produced by a committee appointed by Cabinet in 1959 and Chaired by J.S. Smith, Chief Conservator of Forests. The report was submitted to the National Land Council for consideration. See E.J. Shrubshall, to the Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, 12 Oct. 1955, in M.L. Webber Papers, Mss. Ind. Oce. S.88, RHO. E.J. Shrubshall, 12 Oct. 1955, No. 116, DF 34/54. Walton, ‘Land planning and forestry’, pp. 213–214.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 295 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development at a Price: 1957–69 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

•

295

‘Statement of the Interim Forest Policy for the Federation of Malaya’, in Some Aspects of Forest Policy in the Federation of Malaya, p. 33. Shrubshall, Some aspects of forest policy, pp. 15–16, 33. For information on the 25 per cent quota, see pp. 90, 115, n. 22. Shrubshall to the Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, 12 Oct. 1955, No. 116, in D.F. 34/ 51. Shrubshall, Some aspects of forest policy, p. 20. Ibid., pp. 15–18; P. Hurst, Rainforest Politics: Ecological Destruction in South-East Asia, London: Zed Books, 1990 p. 60. Shrubshall, Some aspects of forest policy, p. 10. Penyata Tahunan Perhutanan Malaysia Barat (PTP), [Annual Report, West Malaysia], 1968, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1972, p. 4. See Sundaram, A Question of Class, Appendix 3, p. 324. B.H. Shafruddin, The Federal Factor in the Government and Politics of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore: OUP, 1987, p. 17. Chief Conservator of Forests, ‘Forest Policy and the Reid Report’, n.d., Enclosure, PHN Phg. 80/57. RFFA, 1958, J.D. Whitaker, Kelantan, p. 58. Federal Constitution, Part VI, Article 91. The Working Party under the Chairmanship of the Chief Conservator of Forests, J.S. Smith, included representatives from the Ministries of Commerce, Natural Resources, Transport and Agriculture. ‘Report of the Working Party on Forest Policy’, 23 Oct. 1959, Confidential, Plant Science Library, Oxford University; Official Year Book [Malaysia Buku Rasmi Tahunan] 1965, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1967, p. 374. The National Land Council, provided by the Constitution of Independent Malaya, allowed for one representative from each State and no more than ten representatives of the Federal government. It was conceived as a separate organ to consider and formulate national policy relating to land utilization including agriculture, mining and forestry. Means, Malaysian Politics, 1976, p. 185. ‘Report of the Working Party on Forest Policy’, pp. 3–6, 33–34. Ibid., pp. 28–29. Shafruddin, The Federal Factor, pp. 15–17, 105–109. Progress, Kuala Lumpur: The Straits Times Press, 1960, p. 7; Shafruddin, The Federal Factor, p. 190. RFFA, 1957, p. 67. RFFA, 1960, p. 18; PTP, 1966, Kuala Lumpur; Govt. Press, 1969, p. 56. During the Malayan Union, only 170 of out of the 225 subordinates trained at FRI, Kepong, still remained within the 700-strong forest service. F.H. Landon, ‘Regional forest training’, Kuala Lumpur: Malayan Union Government, 1947, p. 3. RFA (Peninsular Malaysia), 1963, p. 70; RFFA, 1960, p. 73; RFFA, 1962, p. 72. C.L. Carrier, ‘The illegal cultivation of Forest Reserve and State Land in Perak’, Malayan Forester, 26, iv (1963) pp. 221–224. RFFA, 1957, p. 59. RFFA, 1964, p. 80. Abdullah Mohammad Hassan, Teluk Sira, Mukim Pulai, Baling, to Forest Guard, South Kedah, Kulim, 9 March 1970, FOSK, 53/51, Pt., 8. Forest Guard to Forest Ranger, Hutan Tawar, 23 March 1970, FOSK 53/51, Pt 8. ‘Anak bendang’, Bukit Perenggan, to Forest Officer, Perlis, 31 Jan 1972; Abdul Rahim Ayob, Ranger, Hutan Tawar, Kuala Pegang, to DFO, South Kedah, Kulim, 26 Feb. 1972, No. 61, PHDK 55/51, Pt 9. Ahmand Tajuddin Wan, Ranger, Hutan Tawar, Kuala Pegang to District Forest Commissioner, Kulim, 30 Aug. 1971, No. 37, PHDK 55/51. The Forest Officer at Weng, near Keruh, Kedah, for example, reported that when forest officers approached illegal clearings the cultivators fled, only to return when they were gone. Forest Officer II to Forest Ranger, Weng, 30 March 1969, No. 26, FOSK 53/51 Pt.9; Adas, ‘From avoidance to confrontation’, pp. 217–243.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 296 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

296

37 Ahmad Tajuddin, Hutan Tawar, Kuala Pegang, to the District Forest Commissioner, Kulim, 22 Aug. 1971, no. 37, PHDK 55/51 Pt. 9. 38 Forest Ranger to Forest Guard, South Kedah, June 1969, FOSK, 53/51, Pt 8. 39 S. Sukumara Singam, State Silviculturalist, Kedah, to SFO, Sungai Patani, Kedah, 15 Nov. 1964, FSOK 53/51, Pt 6. 40 Forest Ranger, Tawar, to Forest Guard, South Kedah, Kulim, 19 Jan. 1971, No. 17, FOSK, 53/ 51, Pt 6. 41 K.D. Menon, State Forest Commissioner, to the State Secretary, 19 May 1965, FOSK 53/51, Pt 6. 42 Forest Ranger, Tawar, to Forest Guard, South Kedah, Kulim, 19 Jan. 1971, No. 17, FOSK 53/ 51, Pt 6. 43 PTP, 1966, pp. 57, 77; RFA, 1963, p. 59. 44 Message from H.H. the Sultan at the Budgetary Meeting, 1955, in No. 13 A, DF 119/45; PTP, 1966, p. 85. 45 First Malaysia Plan 1966–1970, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1965, p. 36; Mid-Term Review of the First Malaysia Plan 1966–1970, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1969, p. 47. 46 RFA, 1964, pp. 41–42. 47 PTP, 1967, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1970, p. 61. 48 PTP, 1966, p. 57. 49 See Appendix 5 and P.S. Ashton, T.J. Givnish and S. Appanah, ‘Staggered flowering in the Dipterocarpaceae: New insights into floral induction and the evolution of mass fruiting in the aseasonal tropics’, The American Naturalist, 132, i (1988), Table 4. p. 62. 50 K.C. Goh, ‘Rainfall trends and deficiencies in Peninsular Malaysia’, Oriental Geographer 24, i & ii (1980) pp. 37–38; N.W. Chan, ‘Drought trends in Northwestern Peninsular Malaysia: Is less rain falling?’ Wallaceana, 44, 1986, pp.8–9; N. Myers, ‘Tropical deforestation and climatic change’, Environmental Conservation, 15, iv (1988), pp. 293–294. 51 Malaysia 1965: Buku Rasmi Tahunan [Annual Report], Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1967, p. 374. 52 RFFA, 1958, p. 44. 53 See Sundaram, A Question of Class, pp. 119–120. 54 A.F. Robertson, People and the State: An Anthropology of Planned Development, Cambridge: CUP, 1984, p. 240. 55 Aiken and Leigh, Vanishing Rain Forests, p. 66. 56 RFFA, 1957, p. 58; RFFA, 1960, p. 64. 57 Pahang’s forest revenues rose from just M$ 445,040 in 1949 to M$2.6 million in 1958. K.H. Bryant, SFO, Pahang, 28 May 1959, No. 3, SFO Phg. 136/58. 58 Annual Report, Forest Department, Terengganu, 1960, p. 2; Malaysia 1965: Buku Rasmi Tahunan, p. 376; RFFA, 1960, p. 81. 59 Malaysia 1967: Buku Rasmi Tahunan, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1968, p. 78; PTP, 1969, p. 61. 60 Teh Tiong Sa and Tunku Shamsul Bahrin, ‘Environmental impacts of land development in Jengka Triangle, Pahang, Peninsular Malaysia’, in Voon and Tunku Shamsul (eds), The View From Within, pp. 88–89, 96. 61 ‘The Jengka Triangle Project in Malaysia: Impact Evaluation Report’, World Bank Operations Evaluation Department, World Bank, Washington D.C., 1987, p. 54. 62 This was undertaken by Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton and Hunting Technical Services. See The Jengka Triangle Report: The Outline Master Plan, FELDA, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1967. 63 ‘The Jengka Triangle Project in Malaysia’, World Bank, pp. 53–55. 64 ‘The Jengka Triangle Project in Malaysia’, World Bank, pp. 51; Teh and Tunku Shamsul ‘Environmental impacts of land development in Jengka Triangle’, pp. 84, 100. 65 ‘A study of the forest operations of Syarikat Jengka during the first-year exploitation under sustained yield management’, Forest management Unit, Forestry Department, Govt. of Malaysia-UNDP/FAO Project, Kuala Lumpur, 1976, pp. 7, 80–81.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 297 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development at a Price: 1957–69

•

297

66 Soong Ngin Kwi, G. Haridas, Yeoh Choon Seng and Tan Peng Hua, Soil Erosion and Conservation in Peninsular Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: Rubber Research Institute, 1980, p. 1. 67 ‘The Jengka Triangle Project in Malaysia’, World Bank, 1897, p. 50. 68 Senftleben, Background to Agricultural Land Policy in Malaysia, p. 204. 69 PTP, 1968, pp. 85–90. 70 PTP, 1967, pp. 5–6. This survey was preceded by a 1962 survey conducted by the Forest Department with FAO-sponsored Canadian research assistance, in coordination with the Technical Sub-Committee on Land Capability Classification (LCC) within the EPU. 71 IBRD, The Economic Development of Malaya, pp. 26, 62–63; Hurst, Rainforest Politics, p. 60. 72 RFA, 1963, p.8. 73 P. C. Lee and W.P. Panton, First Malaysia Land Capability Classification Report, West Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. of Malaysia, 1971. This report was based on M.L. Leamy, Proposals for the Technical Classification of Malaysian Soils, Malaysian Soil Survey, Report 3, Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives, 1966; and M.L. Leamy and W.P. Panton, ‘Soil Survey Manual for Malaysian Conditions’, Bulletin of the Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives, Division of Agriculture, No. 119. 1966. 74 PTP, 1966, p. 3. 75 D. Lee, The Sinking Ark: Environmental Problems in Malaysia and Southeast Asia, Kuala Lumpur: Heinemann, 1980, p. 46. 76 RFFA, 1962, p. 63. 77 RFFA, 1957, pp. 33–34; RFFA, 1959, pp. 40–42. 78 RFFA, 1962, p. 54 79 PTP, 1966, pp. 3–4. 80 Mid-Term Review of the First Malaysia Plan, pp. 24–25. 81 Mid-Term Review of the First Malaysia Plan, p. 41. 82 To ensure high quality exports, the Forest Department initiated training of private timber graders from among 417 sawmills. Exports were then checked formally by Government Timber Graders to meet the demands of major importers, namely, Australia, South Africa, the UK, various European countries and the USA. Malaysia 1965: Buku Rasmi Tahunan, pp. 381–382. 83 In 1958, of the 191 licences held for logging, 135 were by Chinese, compared with 54 by Malays. All Malay licences were for logging in State Land, in contrast to the licensing of Chinese in silviculturally managed Reserved Forest, with due regard to their experience in logging. RFFA, 1958, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1959, p. 66. List of Malay loggers and saw millers. Oct. 1963, No 113 A, SFP Phg. 95/52. 84 PTP 1966, p. 102. 85 See R. Berger, Malaysia’s Forests: A Resource Without a Future? Chichester: Packard Publishing House, 1990, pp. 104–107. 86 R. Wikkramatileke, ‘The Jengka Triangle, West Malaysia: A regional development project’, Geographical Review, 62, iv (1972) pp. 495, 498. 87 Teh and Tunku Shamsul, ‘Environmental impacts of land development in Jengka Triangle’, p. 103. 88 RFFA, 1962, p. 49. 89 Dobbs, Tuan Djek, pp. 83, 84. 90 Among the 9 Malay licensees were Sultan Abu Bakar of Johor and members of the Pahang royalty. The latter included: Tengku Nizam Tengku Hashim, Tengku Azam Tengku Omar and Ungku Abdul Jamal Ungku Muda. The largest concession, of 4,854 ha, went to the Chinese, Ong Kian Teck. RFA, 1964, p.55. 91 PTP, 1965, p. 62. 92 RFFA, 1964, p. 70. 93 Other State excisions of Forest Reserves in the 1960s included: Terengganu: Sungai Tong (2,380 ha); Perak: Bukit Belaga (5,020 ha); Terulak (7,279 ha); Bintang Hijau, Keledang Saiong and Pelus (688 ha); Hutan Melintang (33,351 ha) and Aboriginal Reserves (8,097 ha). There was an additional 21,808 ha earmarked for excision. RFA, 1965, p.82; PTP 1968, p. 72; PTP, 1966, pp. 77, 84.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 298 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

298

94 N.R. Cerra, Report No. 14, Batang Padang District, Perak, Forest Resource Reconnaissance Survey of Malaya, FRI, 1967, p. 37. 95 Salleh Mohammed Nor, Report No. 16, Melaka State, Forest Resource Reconnaissance Survey of Malaya, FRI, 1967, p. 41. 96 PTP, 1969, p. 52. 97 Editorial, ‘The evolution of the Malaysian Timber Export Industry Board’, Malayan Forester, 30, iii (1967) p. 163. 98 PTP, 1969, p. 7. 99 PTP, 1968, pp. 4–10. 100 PTP, 1969, p. 8. 101 Malaysia: Official Year Book 1967, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press: 1968, p. 61. 102 Editorial, ‘The evolution of the Malaysian Timber Export Industry Board’, Malayan Forester, 30 (1967), iii, p. 163; Malaysia:Official Year Book, 1970, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1972, p. 229. 103 PTP, 1967, p. 7. 104 S.C. Chin, ‘Managing Malaysia’s forests for sustained production’, Wallaceana, 55 & 56 (1989) p. 4; Wyatt-Smith, Manual, I, p. III-6/2-6/3. 105 RFFA, 1957, p. 86; PTP, 1966; p.5; PTP, 1968, p. 1. 106 RFFA, 1957, p. 85; PTP, 1969, p. 93. 107 J. Wyatt-Smith, ‘A preliminary vegetation map of Malaya with descriptions of the vegetation types’, Journal of Tropical Geography, 18 (1964) p. 208. 108 PTP, 1968, p. 16; Malaysia: Official Year Book, 1974, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1975, p. 194. 109 Mid-Term Review of the Second Malaysia Plan 1971–1975, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1973, p. 135. 110 ‘Management planning and operational control of mechanized harvesting systems for the utilization of the national rain forest resources’, Forest Development, Peninsular Malaysia, UNDP/ FAO Report, FO:DP/MAL/75/, Kuala Lumpur, 1978, pp. 1–3; T. Mok, ‘Forest management strategies for sustained maximum socio-economic benefits’, Malayan Forester, 40, i (1977) pp. 15–16. 111 Sir Henry Beresford Pierse, ‘Forest industries development, Malaysia: Forest policy, law and administration in West Malaysia’. Report prepared for internal discussion by the Government of Malaysia, Forest Industries Development Project, FAO, UNDP: SF/MAL/68/ 516, Working Paper 6, Nov. 1970, pp. 2–3. 112 Salleh Mohd Nor, ‘Forestry in Peninsular Malaysia and its role in environmental conservation’, in Development and the Environmental Crisis: A Malaysian Case. Proceedings of a Symposium, 16–20 Sept. 1978, Penang: CAP, 1982, p. 77. 113 FRI’s emphasis on increasing raw cellulose material for the pulp and paper industry through appropriate research and management was consistent with the First Malaysia Plan’s target for improving the wood-based industries. A British Colombo Plan silvicultural ecologist joined FRI’s team on the five-year UNDP/Special Fund assisted ‘Pilot Plantations for Quick Growing Industrial Tree Species Project’. Mid-Term Review of the First Malaysia Plan, pp. 58–59. 114 PTP, 1967, pp. 3–5; PTP, 1968, p. 16. 115 FAO, ‘Forest and forest industries development Malaysia, Logging and log transportation in Peninsular Malaysia’, UNDP, Rome, 1973, p. 1. 116 Mid-Term Review of the First Malaysia Plan, p. 39. 117 Malaysia: Official Year Book, 1974, p. 194. 118 Second Malaysia Plan 1971–1975, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1971, Introduction. 119 PTP, 1969, p. 62. 120 IBRD, ‘Extracts from “Current economic position and prospects of Malaysia’”, 24 Feb. 1970, vol. I, pp. 31–32. 121 Malaysia Year Book 1968, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1969, p. 9. 122 New Straits Times (NST), 22 June 1974, Quoted in Sundaram, A Question of Class, p. 89. 123 Foreword by Prime Minister, Tun Razak, Second Malaysia Plan 1971–1975. 124 Aiken and Leigh, Vanishing Rain Forests, p. 66. 125 Mid-Term Review of the Second Malaysia Plan, pp. 138–139.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 299 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development at a Price: 1957–69

•

299

126 Second Malaysia Plan, p. 141. Premium is an area-based charge levied for the right to harvest in a specific concession area under a permit or a licence. The estimated charge was based on a number of variables such as productivity of the concession, location, accessibility, current log price etc. In contrast, royalty and silvicultural cess were volume based. Royalty rates, which were based on species, were uniform within States but varied between States and constituted about 50 per cent of the forest revenues, with premium and silvicultural cess contributing about 27 per cent and 13 per cent respectively. Awang Noor Abdul Ghani, ‘Forest concessions, revenue systems and timber trade’, in Proceedings of the CAP-SAM National Conference: State of the Malaysian Environment, 5–9 Jan. 1996, Penang: CAP-SAM, pp. 394–404. 127 The title of ‘Chief Conservator of Forests’, adopted after World War II, was re-designated in 1967 as ‘Director of Forestry’. 128 ‘Organization and Structure of the Forest Department’, PTP, 1972, p. 1. 129 P.W. Richards, The Tropical Rain Forest: An Ecological Study, Cambridge: CUP, 1952, pp. 243–247, 249–250. 130 See P.W. Richards, ‘What the tropics can contribute to ecology’, Journal of Animal Ecology, 33 (1964) pp. 1–11; Sheail, Seventy-Five Years in Ecology, p. 166. 131 J. Wyatt-Smith, ‘Review of The Tropical Rain Forest: An Ecological Study’, Malayan Forester, 16 (1953) p. 242; Wyatt-Smith, personal communication. 132 A meeting was convened in 1956 in Dehra Dun, for example, for the application of statistical methods to forestry and included discussion of the treatment of tropical rain forests. H. Tempany and D.H. Grist, An Introduction to Tropical Agriculture, London,1958, p. 81. 133 E.J. Shrubshall, ‘The Sixth Commonwealth Forestry Conference, Canada, 1952’, Malayan Forester, 16 (1952) p. 5. 134 RFFA, 1956, p. 17. 135 RFFA, 1959, p. 16. 136 Symposium on Ecological Research in Humid Tropics Vegetation, Govt. of Sarawak and UNESCO Science Cooperation Office for Southeast Asia, 1965. 137 RFA, 1963, pp. 14–15. Malaysianization was completed in 1965, on the return of locals trained in the UK and Australia under Colombo Plan Scholarships. In the interim, the department fell short of the posts of Dy Chief Research Officer, Forest Botanist, Entomologist and Timber Research Officer. RFA, 1963, pp. 8–9. 138 PTP, 1966, pp. 2–3. In 1966, other aid officers in forestry included, A.J. Shanks, ‘Saw Doctor Expert’; 2 American Peace Corps Officers; and 3 British Volunteer Service Officers. Malaysia, 1971, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1972, p. 546; T.C. Whitmore (ed.), Tree Flora of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur: Longman, vols. 1 and 2 (1972–73); F.S.P. Ng (ed.), vols. 3 and 4 (1978–89). 139 J.S. Smith, ‘Past, present and future – A review’, Malayan Forester, 22 (1959) p. 272. 140 Smith, ‘Past, present and future – A review’, p. 278. 141 Sheail, Seventy-Five Years in Ecology, p. 219; L. K. Caldwell, International Environmental Policy: From the Twentieth to the Twenty-First Century, Durham: Duke University, 1996, pp. 282–283; E. Balasingam, ‘Report on the conference of nature and natural resources in tropical Southeast Asia, Bangkok, 29 Nov.–4 Dec. 1965’, MNJ, 19, i (1965) pp. 242–243. 142 O.H. Frankel, ‘Pacific centres of genetic diversity’, Malayan Forester, 32, iv (1969) pp. 356– 358. 143 Editorial, ‘The International Biological Programme’, Malayan Forester 22, iv (1969) p. 354. In the absence of a national science council to administer a programme of this nature, the Malaysian National Committee for IBP was set up. K.D. Menon, ‘Malaysian national programme for IBP: A review of highlights’, Malayan Forester (1969) 32, iv, p. 395. 144 Sheail, Seventy-Five Years in Ecology, pp. 219–220. 145 The senior forester, S. Appanah, is a product of this scheme. 146 In the USA, Frederick Clements had provided the lead for the ecological conservation movement in the 1930s on the basis of his ‘climax theory’. He advocated that land use policy be aimed at leaving climax vegetation, well adapted to its habitat, as undisturbed as possible. Worster, Nature’s Economy, pp. 233–234; Nash, The Rights of Nature, p. 63. 147 Smith, ‘Past, present and future – A review’, p. 280. 148 J.C.K. Marshall, who received his forestry training in Oxford, began his service in Malaya in 1928. He was Honorary Game Warden in most of the States where he served as forester.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 300 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165

166

167

168

169

170 171

•

300

Following his return to Malaya after the war, he was seconded for three years to Fiji. His immense interest in land use policy won him a United Nations grant to the USA and on returning in 1951, he served mainly in Selangor, Perak and Johor, which all faced serious squatter problems and related land degradation. J. Wyatt-Smith, ‘Obituary’, Malayan Forester, 24 (1961) p. 4. C. Marshall, ‘Sustained yield and the national conscience’, Paper presented at the 1952 (Singapore) Conference of the United Nations FAO Forestry Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Malayan Forester, 16, ii (1953) p. 95. Marshall, ‘Sustained yield and the national conscience’, p. 97. C. Marshall, ‘Land use and abuse in Malaya’, Malayan Forester, 15, ii (1952) p. 133. Marshall, ‘Land use and abuse in Malaya’, p. 134. The 1922 Silt (Control) Enactment was superseded by the F.M.S. Silt Control Enactment of 1933. Marshall, ‘Land use and abuse in Malaya’, p. 135. Marshall, ‘Sustained yield and the national conscience’, pp. 95–96. Ibid., p. 95. Marshall’s resolution was accepted by the Commission and he was appointed Chairman of a permanent working party constituting members nominated by the various governments, to study regional needs. Marshall, ‘Sustained yield and the national conscience’, pp. 97–98. For a selection of Malay verse on nature, see R. O. Winstedt, Malays: A Cultural History, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1947, Sixth Edition, 1961, pp. 154–156. See Winstedt, ‘The literature of Malay folk-lore’, pp. 12–19. See, for example, L. Comber, Favourite Stories From Malaysia, Hong Kong: Heinemann, 1972. For a definition of the term si, see p. 218 n.7. Naoki, ‘The Malay world in textbooks’, pp. 200, 211. The information is based on the author’s personal recollections of schooling and education in Malaya during the 1950s. See p. 213. ‘Mr. L.R. Wheeler talks about nature study in schools’, Malay Mail, 27 March 1931. Mohamad Said, Memoirs of a Menteri Besar: Early Days, Singapore, Heinemann pp. 96–97, 106–107; Ishak, The Prince of Gunong Tahan, p. 50. ‘Mr. L.R. Wheeler talks about nature study in schools’, Malay Mail, 27 March 1931. Wheeler, who started his career in 1913 as a science and mathematics teacher in Antigua, West Indies, joined the Malay College, Kuala Kangsar, where he was regarded as an exemplary teacher of chemistry. Mohamad Said, Memoirs, pp. 152–153. E.H.G. Dobby, Southeast Asia (First published London, 1950), London: University Press, 1973; L.A. Stamp, Asia: A Regional and Economic Geography (First published 1929), 11th Edition, London: Methuen, 1962; C.A. Fisher, South-East Aisa: A Social, Economic and Political Geography of South-East Asia (First published 1962), London: Methuen, 1964. Malaya: Secondary Schools Biology Syllabus published under Regulation 4 of Schools (Courses of Studies) Regulations, 1956, as approved by the High Commissioner in Council, Federation of Malaya. G.N. 1184/57; Botany Syllabus for Secondary Schools for the Federation of Malaya as approved by His Majesty the Yang-di Pertuan Agong, 1956–57. J.L. Harrison, ‘Education in schools: The time lag in teaching biology’, in L.M. Talbot and H.Y.H. Talbot (eds), Conservation in Tropical Asia, Proceedings of the Conference on Nature and Natural Resources in South-East Tropical Asia, Organized by IUCN and sponsored by FAO, UNESCO and the National Research Council of Thailand, 29 Nov.–4 Dec., IUCN Publications, Series No 10, Morges, Switzerland, 1968, pp. 184–187. Nature Study in the UK had its roots in the efforts of countryside teachers, during the second half of the nineteenth century, to instil among their pupils an interest in the natural environment. In 1902, the School Nature Study Union was founded but was very limited in its influence. Even the National Rural Studies Association, formed in 1960, was confined to vocational training and school gardens and gave way to a wider concept of environmental instruction only after the formation, in 1971, of the National Association for Environmental Education, W. Fenwick, ‘Education and Environment’. The Ecologist, 2, viii (1972) pp. 7–8. M. Nicholson, The New Environmental Age. Cambridge: CUP, 1987, p. 113. C. Marshall, ‘The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources’, Malayan Forester, 20 (1957) p. 80.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 301 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development at a Price: 1957–69

•

301

172 Marshall, ‘The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources’, p. 81. 173 H.J. Coolidge, ‘Recent developments in international conservation’, in Wyatt-Smith and Wycherley (eds), Nature Conservation in Western Malaysia, pp. 19–20. 174 ‘Tenth Pacific Science Congress’, MNJ, 16, iii (1962) pp. 145–149. 175 The delegation was made up of Loke Wan Tho, millionaire and nature photographer, representing the Singapore Government and the Malayan Nature Society, and Abdul Rahman Mohamed Salleh, Deputy Secretary, Lands, from the Ministry of Rural Development, which administered the Game Department and the National Park. J. Wyatt-Smith, ‘Working Group on Conservation in South-East Asia’, MNJ, 16, iii (1962) pp. 116–118. 176 See Balasingam, ‘Report on the Conference on Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources’, pp. 242–243. 177 See p. 217 for the origins of the MNS. 178 P.R.W[ycherley]. ‘Obituary: Dato Sir Mahmud bin Mat’, MNJ, 25 (1972) pp. 4–5. 179 A.J. Berry, ‘Obituary: Professor E. Balasingam’, MNJ, 26 (1973) pp. 72–73. 180 Edgar and Shebbeare, ‘The Malayan Nature Society, 1940–61’, pp. 11–12. 181 See S. Durai Raja Singam, ‘Cultural revival in Malaya’, Malayan Historical Society, 2, ii (1955) pp. 131–137. The Templer Park project was carried out by a small ad hoc committee composed of officials from the Departments of Agriculture and Forestry, under the chairmanship of the Home Affairs Minister, Tun Ismail Abdul Rahman. 182 R.N. Hilton, ‘Templer Park, Malaya’, in Wyatt-Smith and Wycherley (eds), Nature Conservation in Western Malaysia, pp. 100–103; M. Nadchatram, ‘Templer Park’, MNJ, 24 (1971) p. 100. 183 C. Marshall, ‘Soil control by self control’, Malayan Forester, 16, i (1953) pp. 12–18. 184 Tunku Shamsul Bahrin, ‘Land settlement in Malaysia: A case study of the Federal Land Development Authority Projects’, in A.S. Oberoi (ed.), Land Settlement Policies and Population Redistribution in Developing Countries, New York: Praeger, 1988, p.118; K. Sutton, ‘Malaysia’s FELDA land settlement model in time and space’, Geoforum, 20, iii (1989) pp. 339–340; Barlow, The Natural Rubber Industry, pp. 240, 264–265. 185 The Jawatankuasa Kerja Kemajuan Ranchangan or the Project Development Council was set up in 1967 to promote a self-dependent society of settlers capable of looking after their own crops. Sutton, ‘Malaysia’s FELDA land settlement model’, p. 345. 186 Aiken and Leigh, Vanishing Rain Forests, pp. 65–66; D. M. Nonini, British Colonial Rule and the Resistance of the Malay Peasantry, 1900–1957, New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asia Studies, Monograph 38, 1992, p. 151. 187 See, for example, G.E.D. Lewis, Out East in the Malay Peninsula, Petaling Jaya, Selangor: Penerbit Fajar Bakti,1991, pp. 143–147; 164–165; K. Watson, ‘Education and colonialism in Peninsular Malaysia’, in. K. Watson (ed.), Education in the Third World, London: Croom Helm, 1982, pp. 100–102; Watson Andaya and Andaya, A History of Malaysia, p. 281. 188 Ling Chia Poh, ‘Current problems in the teaching of geography in Malaysia’, in Teacher Education in New Countries, 10, i (1969) p. 165. 189 Watson, ‘Education and colonialism in Peninsular Malaysia’, pp. 104–105. 190 P.R. Wycherley, ‘Conservation in Malaysia’, IUCN New Series, Supplementary Paper, No. 22, Morges, Switzerland: IUCN, 1969, pp. 156–158. 191 E.J.H. Corner, ‘Introduction’, in Wyatt-Smith and Wycherley (eds), Nature Conservation in Western Malaysia, pp. 1–2. 192 C.G.G.J. van Steenis, ‘Preservation of tropical plants and vegetation, an essential to the welfare of the people: An outlook on the future’, in Wyatt-Smith and Wycherley (eds), Nature Conservation in Western Malaysia, p. 25. 193 Holttum was Director of the Botanic Gardens, Singapore, 1925–49, and then Professor of Botany at the University of Malaya, Singapore, 1949–54. 194 R.E. Holttum, ‘Some thoughts from the past’, in Wyatt-Smith and Wycherley (eds), Nature Conservation in Western Malaysia, p. 16. 195 G. Hawkins, ‘Conservation in Penang’, in Wyatt-Smith and Wycherley (eds), Nature Conservation in Western Malaysia, p. 57. 196 Van Steenis, ‘Preservation of tropical plants and vegetation, an essential to the welfare of people’, p. 25.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 302 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

302

197 Gilliland, ‘Conservation and education’, in Wyatt-Smith and Wycherley (eds), Nature Conservation in Western Malaysia, p. 28. 198 D.R. Wells, ‘Selangor Branch Report’, MNJ, 24 (1970–71) p. 39. 199 F.C. Vora, ‘Malayan Nature Society essay competition: Note from the Organizer’, Malayan Nature Journal, 22 (1969) p. 89; Report of the Educational Committee, Malayan Naturalist, 1, i (1974) p. 7. 200 Note of a meeting held in the Office of the Director of Forestry to discuss the future of the Game Department, 26 June 1951, No. 74A, DF 200/45. 201 Stevens, ‘The conservation of wildlife in West Malaysia’, pp. 16–17. 202 Shebbeare returned temporarily in 1947 as Chief Game Warden and Fetherstonhaugh, who succeeded him, was the only professional Game Warden. Subsequently, the joint administration of the Forest and Game Departments under the Malayan Union was facilitated by the appointment of T.A. Strong as Director of Forests. Transferred in 1938 from the Peninsula to Ceylon, he had gained experience there of running a joint forest and game administration. Note of a meeting held in the Office of the Director of Forestry to discuss the future of the Game Department, 26 June 1951, No. 74 a, DF 200/45. 203 M. L. Webber, for example, acted as Game Warden in Kedah in 1946 and again in Selangor in 1949, in addition to his duties as State Conservator of Forests. 204 Note of a meeting held in the Office of the Director of Forestry to discuss the future of the Game Department, 26 June 1951, No. 74A, DF 200/45. 205 The Committee comprised the Acting Director of Forestry; Chief Game Warden; Adviser on Aborigines and Acting Director of Museums; Secretary to the Member for Home Affairs; Secretary to the Member for Education; and Secretary to the Member for Agriculture and Forestry. 206 Report of a meeting convened to consider the future of the Forest Department, 3 Jan. 1952, No. 79, DF 200/45. 207 D.W. Le Mare, Director of Fisheries, ibid. 208 Ibid. 209 ‘The Wild Animals and Birds Protection Ordinance 1955’, Supplement to the Federation of Malaya Gazette, No. 5, 3 March 1955, vol. VII, Notification No. 525. 210 ‘Amalgamation of the Game Department with the Forest Department’, Adviser’s Report, Game Department, Federation of Malaya, 16 May 1951, No. 12 A, DF 200/45. 211 Stevens, ‘The conservation of wildlife in West Malaysia’, p. 16. 212 Mohd Khan Momin Khan, ‘Animal conservation strategies’, in Cranbrook (ed.), Key Environments, p. 254. 213 J. Wyatt-Smith, ‘Foreword’, in Wyatt-Smith and Wycherley (eds), Nature Conservation in Western Malaysia. 214 Stevens, ‘The conservation of wildlife in West Malaysia’, p. 6. 215 Ibid., p. 29. The biologically important valley end of the reserve was progressively cleared for agriculture and only about 2,000 ha (half the original size), backing the Piah and Korbu Forest Reserves, now remain. 216 Stevens, ‘The conservation of wildlife in West Malaysia’, pp. 42, 46. P.R. Wycherley supported Stevens’s proposal that the creation and revocation of reserves be covered by Acts of Parliament. See Wycherley, ‘Conservation in Malaysia’, p. 150. 217 Stevens, ‘The conservation of wildlife in West Malaysia’, p. 42. 218 Ibid., pp. 19, 34. 219 Kitchener, ‘The bleak future for the seladang or Malayan gaur’, p. 199. 220 ‘The Jengka Triangle Project in Malaysia’, World Bank, p. 51. 221 Mohamed Khan, ‘Specialist wildlife training from the standpoint of an Asian trainee’, Conservation in Tropical Asia, Proceedings of the Conference on Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources in Tropical South-East Asia, Bangkok, Nov.–Dec. 1965, Morges, Switzerland: IUCN, 1968. 222 O.M.B. Milton, ‘Some problems in wild life conservation in S.E. Asia’, Malayan Forester, 25, i (1962) p. 39; Mohamed Khan, ‘Specialist wildlife training’, pp. 44–45. 223 See pp. 203–204. 224 Stevens, ‘The conservation of wildlife in West Malaysia’, p. 107.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 303 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development at a Price: 1957–69

•

303

225 Olivier, ‘Reconciling elephant conservation and development in Asia’, p. 316, R. Olivier, ‘Conservation of the Asian elephant’, Environmental Conservation, 5, i (1978) p. 146. 226 E.C. Foenander, ‘The conservation of the Malayan elephant’, in Wyatt-Smith and Wycherley (eds), Nature Conservation in Western Malaysia, pp. 195–196. 227 Stevens, ‘The conservation of wildlife in West Malaysia’, Table 1, ‘Estimated numbers of elephants, seladangs and rhinoceroses in Malaya compared to previous reports’, p. 105. 228 W.E. Stevens, ‘The rare large mammals of Malaya’, MNJ, 22 (1968) p. 12; Mohd Khan Momin Khan, ‘On the population and distribution of the Malayan elephant’, MNJ, 30 (1977) pp. 6–7. 229 Olivier, ‘Distribution and status of the Asian elephant’, Oryx, 14 (1979) iv, pp. 409–410. 230 Mohd Khan Momin Khan, ‘Problems with the elephant, and where it is in danger in the State of Perak’, MNJ, 19 (1965) pp. 138–140. 231 Mohd Khan Momin Khan, ‘Population trends of deer in Perak as seen from licence reports’, MNJ, 20 (1967) pp. 25–26. 232 The States affected were Selangor, Perak, Melaka, Negeri Sembilan and Pahang. Stevens, ‘The conservation of wildlife in West Malaysia’, p. 23. 233 H.J. Kitchener, ‘The importance of protecting the Malayan tiger’, in Wyatt-Smith and Wycherley (eds), Nature Conservation in Western Malaysia, pp. 203–205. Kitchener was Game Warden during 1952–58. 234 Kitchener, ‘The importance of protecting the Malayan tiger’, pp. 206; Kitchener, ‘The bleak prospect for the seladang’, pp. 200–201. 235 Mohamed Khan, ‘Specialist wildlife training’, p. 45. 236 Stevens, ‘The conservation of wildlife in West Malaysia’, pp. 27, 31. 237 B. E. Weber, ‘A national park system for West Malaysia’, Report for the Game Department, 1968, pp. 3–4 238 W.E.M. van der Schout, ‘Aborigines in Taman Negara: The impact of a [hunter-gatherer] community on a lowland rain forest ecosystem’, Journal of Wildlife and Parks, 10 (1990). Special Issue to Commemorate the Golden Jubilee of Taman Negara, 1939–1989, p. 176. 239 ‘Annual Report of the Game Department, 1947’, P/1, pp. 9–10. 240 Stevens, ‘The rare large mammals of Malaya’, p. 12: Table 1. 241 L. Weigum, ‘The last refuge’, MNJ, 24 (1971) p. 137. 242 Stevens, ‘The conservation of wildlife in West Malaysia’, p. 107. 243 Stevens, ‘The rare large mammals of Malaya’, p. 12. 244 Editorial, ‘Malaysia must act to save the Sumatran rhino’, MNJ, 24 (1970) pp. 1–2. 245 P.F. Burgess, ‘The effects of logging on hill dipterocarp forests’, MNJ, 24 (1971) p. 235. 246 The total basal area of trees above 10 cm in diameter was taken as 41.3 sq. m per ha. Ibid., p. 232. 247 J. Wyatt-Smith, Standard Instructions for the Formation of VJRs, SFO Phg. 134/50. The absolute minimum size suggested was 81 ha, or the average size of a compartment in the existing compartment system. R. Laidlaw, ‘The Virgin Jungle Reserves of Peninsular Malaysia: The Ecology and Dynamics of Small Protected Areas in Managed Forest’, PhD dissertation, Cambridge, 1994, p. 9. 248 Collins, Sayer and Whitmore (eds), The Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests, p. 188. 249 B. C. Stone, ‘National parks as national resource’, in B.C. Stone (ed.), Natural Resources in Malaysia and Singapore. Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Scientific and Technological Research in Malaysia and Singapore, 1–4 Feb. 1967, STRMS, II, Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya, 1969, p. 8. 250 By 1986, an estimated 37.2 per cent of the workforce was engaged in middle-class occupations. J. Saravanamuttu quoted in J.S. Kahn, ‘The middle class as a field of ethnological study’, in Muhammad Ikmal Said and Zahid Emby (eds), Malaysia: Critical Perspectives: Essays in honour of Syed Husin Ali, Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Social Science Association, 1997, p. 13. 251 M. Rudner, ‘Agricultural policy and peasant social transformation in late colonial Malaya’, in J.C. Jackson and M. Rudner (eds), Issues in Malaysian Development, Australian Association of Asian Studies Publication Series, Singapore: Heinemann Publications, 1979, pp. 9, 12. 252 Shahnon Ahmad, No Harvest but a Thorn, pp. 2, 149.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 304 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation 253 254 255 256 257 258

259 260 261 262 263

264 265 266 267

268 269

•

304

Ibid., pp. 18, 102. Ibid., pp. vi–vii. Ibid., pp. 6–7, 133. Mohamad Said, Memoirs, pp. 102–105. Within the family Viverridae, the musang pulut (Paradoxurus hermaphroditus) or toddy cat is commonest in settled areas. Lord Medway, The Wild Mammals of Malaya and Singapore, p. 91. Ismail Sahid, Masalah Semasa Alam Sekitar Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor: Penerbit Universiti Kabangsaan, 1985, p. 19; Vincent et al., Environment and Development in a Resource Rich Economy, p. 159. See for example Nos. 656, 845, 951, 983, 1132 in Kumpulan Pantun Melayu, compiled by Zainal Abidin Bakar, Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1984. Aiken and Leigh, The Vanishing Rain Forest, pp. 106–107. Shahnon Ahmad, Kesasterawanan: Kepolitikan, Kealaman, Kedirian, Kemanusiaan, Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1992. Ibid., pp, 74–76. Ibid., p. 84–85. The growth of the Malay middle class was spectacular. Triggered by the expansion of tertiary education, numbers rose from an estimated 6,600 in 1970 to 78,200 in 1988. H. Crouch, ‘Industrialization and political change’, in H. Brookfield (ed.), Transformation with Industralization in Peninsular Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1994, p. 29; H. Crouch, Economic Change, Social Structure and Politics, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1985, p. 31; J.S. Kahn, ‘The middle class as a field of ethnological study’, in Mohammad Ikmal, et al. (eds), Malaysia: Critical Perspectives, pp. 13–16. The teaching of biology in Malaysian universities played an important role in environmental education, backed by University of Malaya’s field station at Hulu Gombak. It was founded in 1965, with Nuffield funding, by Lord Cranbrook (then Lord Medway). For an example of the rural pursuits of a Malay boy and his knowledge of wildlife in Linggi, Negeri Sembilan, see Mohamad Said, Memoirs, pp. 106–107. Wyatt-Smith, ‘Working Group on conservation’, p. 114; Corner, ‘ Introduction’, Nature Conservation in West Malaysia, pp. 1–2. ‘Report of the Fifteenth Annual General Meeting [of the Malayan Nature Society]’, MNJ, 16, i & ii (1962), p. 214; ‘Minutes of the 33rd Annual General Meeting [of the Malayan Nature Society]’, Malayan Naturalist, 34, i & ii (1980) p. 23; ‘Minutes of the 41st Annual General Meeting [of the Malayan Nature Society]’, Malayan Naturalist, 42, iv (1989) p. 9. This information is based on personal communication with founder members and the author’s long association with the activities and workings of MNS. Robertson, People and the State, p. 1.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 305 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

PART V

Reconciling Nature and Nation, 1970–1980s

KWells_book_3.fm Page 306 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

KWells_book_3.fm Page 307 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

CHAPTER TEN

Development and Environmentalism We must bear in mind how serious the implications will be to the nation’s socioeconomic stability if the timber industry suffers. – Mahathir Mohamad.1

nlike wild life protection that inspired the pre-war nature conservation movement, Malaysian environmentalism from the 1970s was informed by global concerns over the socio-economic consequences of forest degradation. This chapter explores the extent to which the influence of environmental advocacy at home and abroad contributed to the government’s avowal of forest protection as a desirable objective. Translating the environmental rhetoric into appropriate legislation for enforcement within the federal system presented a major challenge. Given the weight of development priorities and the substantial revenues from timber, parks and reserves offered the only guarantee for biosphere preservation and the ground for negotiation between government and civil society.

U

THE NEW ENV IRONMENTAL AGE

Modern environmental movements are critical responses to over-ambitious and flawed development programmes that have impacted adversely on the human condition they set out to improve. The model for the massive postWorld War II agenda for rehabilitation and Third World development was established by President Franklin Roosevelt’s pre-war ‘New Deal’ policy. Based on a programme of bold government action for revamping the economy in the face of the Great Depression, it drew its inspiration from the philosophy of the ‘Progressive Era’, developed at the turn of the century under President Theodore Roosevelt (1901–09). At the heart of the new ethics was the ‘gospel of efficiency’, aimed at channelling capitalism towards the common good through the agency of science. Scientific rationale exercised through a centralized, impartial authority was perceived as a means, not of supplanting capitalism, but ‘making it work better’.2 Closely linked was the concept of a ‘managerial ethos’ associated with resource planning.3 A central motif within the development paradigm was the dam. In 1933 the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was established to build dams to facilitate flood control, navigation and electricity

KWells_book_3.fm Page 308 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

308

generation.4 ‘Dams symbolized both humans’ control of nature and the nation’s triumphant combat with the depression’.5 Post-war advances in technology and science gave increased credence to environmental engineering as the key to improved productivity and growth. It became part and parcel of the post-war aid programme for the developing world. There was, however, a reverse side to the ‘New Deal’ that sowed the seeds of doubt and caution. TVA and other dams were harnessed for production of atomic weapons for World War II, culminating in the horror of Hiroshima in 1945. Closer to home, the pollution generated by TVA’s coal-fired generating plants contributed to rising sensitivity to the post-war capitalist assault on the natural world.6 Symptomatic was the growing body of environmental literature on the health of the biosphere. Samuel Hays, in Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency, interpreted the Progressive movement in terms of a rational exploitation of nature.7 Some of the most powerful statements on the downside of capitalist growth were Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962) and Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb (1968), which addressed the post-war nightmare of chemical pollution and environmental degradation. Science and technology, co-opted by post-war development for massive projects in the name of efficiency and economic growth, were double-edged. As economic expansion was perceived to be the basis of national power, it became as important for science to draw attention to the environmental implications of exponential growth as to pioneer technologies for production and consumption. Biologist Garrett Hardin’s model, the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ (1968), which summed up society’s dilemma of reconciling sustainable resource exploitation with development targets, caught the popular imagination.8 By the 1960s, resolution of this problem became a political issue and natural science forged links with public advocacy, auguring the global environmental movement. The rhetoric of environmental forewarnings, ranging from the cautionary to the radical, set the tone for the New Environmental Age. In the UK, the Cleveland Water Board’s 1956 proposal to build a reservoir in Upper Teesdale, at Cow Green, galvanized the environmental movement, delaying passage of the Parliamentary Bill until 1971.9 By 1970 the British Ecological Society, taking its cue from the Ecological Society of America, formed an Ecological Affairs Committee to bring scientific knowledge to bear on matters of common environmental concern. In 1972, the radical NGO magazine, the Ecologist, published its landmark ‘Blue Print for Survival’, proclaiming its resolve to persuade national governments, industrial leaders and trade unions to help arrest ‘the irreversible disruption of a life-support system of this planet’. ‘Infinite growth of whatever type cannot be sustained by finite resources,’ it stressed. ‘This is the nub of the environmental predicament’. 10 A shift in the emphasis from exponential growth to maintaining the stability of ecological processes was considered fundamental to social stability and greater individual contentment.11 It was the developing world that saw some of the most am-

KWells_book_3.fm Page 309 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development and Environmentalism

•

309

bitious initiatives for linking socio-economic and environmental engineering. Such efforts, supported by international aid, often unleashed massive environmental degradation, which in time spurred NGO efforts to promote ‘sustainable development’ as a rational philosophy for human progress.12 THE SE MINAL YEAR, 1972

In Malaysia, where development was adopted as a powerful icon of progress, its potentially darker side was soon revealed. Twice in 1971, the Peninsula experienced disastrous floods, probably under the influence of ENSO factors affecting the region (see Appendix 5). Their recurrence only five years after the 1967 deluge and more than 40 years after the ‘Great Flood’, caused alarm. Though the floods were attributed to meteorological rather than land use factors,13 extensive and unprecedented land clearance drew attention to the function of trees and vegetation for mitigating the effects of floods. Hydrologists emphasized that denuded landscapes and silted rivers could aggravate the impact of unusual downpours.14 The floods also demonstrated the extent of the economy’s vulnerability to environmental perturbation.15 Losses sustained during the January 1967 deluge were estimated at M$44 million. The cost incurred by the January 1971 flood, in the Pahang valley alone, was calculated at M$38 million. 16 Between January 1970 and January 1971, loss in export revenues from the timber industry, affected by floods, was estimated at M$5.3 million, with a further loss of M$3 million incurred during the December 1971–January 1972 floods. 17 Government targets, aimed decidedly at raising production, profit and the GNP, had given little attention to the environmental and social implications of land development schemes.18 The 1967 experience precipitated action and a Technical Subcommittee for Flood Control was appointed. Both this committee and a UNESCO consultant stressed the need for discretionary land use in floodprone areas.19 Forest conservation for soil and water protection, not previously mentioned in the five-year development plans, was for the first time written into the Second Malaysia Plan (1971–75).20 In parallel with government commitment to mitigate floods, the MNS set out to create a wider awareness of environmental degradation through its popular bulletin, the Malayan Naturalist, launched in 1974 as a supplement to the Malayan Nature Journal. While recognizing land development schemes as a vital part of socio-economic development, the Society addressed the need to alleviate the escalating problem of erosion and flooding, seen as the obvious outcome of forest clearance in the humid tropics. The Malaysian jungle is made up of several tiers or levels. There is the upper storey where the canopy of the highest trees merges to form a continuous leafy layer. This acts as the first screen breaking up the force of the rain and wind … . From the highest tier to the lower and so on, by the time the water reaches the undergrowth on the jungle floor, it has lost whatever force it had in the form of raindrops.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 310 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

310

Contrast the situation with one often observed on a dirt track in a cleared area. When the first drop hits the ground a swirl of red dust rises and the spot on the ground is marked by a slight indentation. Imagine the ‘corrosive’ action of millions of raindrops in one rainy season. This accounts for the deep cuts seen on bare exposed land; the rushing rivers of red, muddy water down slopes of cleared areas currently under development … . To those who take in such observations the cause of these is obvious – the absolute removal of the tree canopy which was there once.21

Though in the 1970s systematic evaluation of soil erosion was as yet unavailable, preliminary studies indicated that much soil loss occurred through the kinetic action of sheet erosion, rain splash and gullying, particularly in the absence of vegetation cover. The whole of the Peninsula was identified as having ‘at least a moderate risk of soil erosion’, with at least three of the major land development schemes – Jengka Triangle, Johor Tenggara and Pahang Tenggara – located in areas of high erosion risk.22 Establishing a continuous tree canopy in development schemes to replace the forest was unfeasible, observed the Malayan Naturalist; but could not development be tempered with adequate protection of vegetation?23 The MNS, which had many of its members working with universities and scientific institutions, saw itself as a potential lobbing agency for influencing official policy. Appropriate to this strategy, in 1972 it organized a symposium on ‘Biological Resources and National Development’, officiated by Taib Mahmud, the Minister for Primary Industries. A forum convened on the same occasion provided the basis for the 1974 MNS Blue Print,24 setting the tone for environmental advocacy in the Peninsula. Acknowledging the inevitable impacts of development on the environment, the Blue Print proposed preserving representative areas of the country’s natural habitats, with appropriate measures for their protection.25 Pursuance of this aim, however, was difficult as developers were reluctant to engage in a serious dialogue with conservationists. 26 Furthermore, government discounted the precautionary principle fundamental to conservation initiatives and remained sceptical about the impact of land clearance and logging without empirical evidence.27 ‘What will be the consequences of deforestation and development of plantation crops on flooding, on soil structure and on pests and diseases?’ asked the Minister for Technology, Research and Local Government. ‘Unless there is an adequate body of research’, he contended, ‘we cannot predict and must continue, as at present, on the lines which seem most appropriate.’28 Anticipating no change in the existing pattern of development, P.F. Burgess submitted a plea at the symposium for the preservation of representative areas of virgin forest for recreation and scientific study.29 In keeping with this objective, the Nature Society’s Blue Print expanded on the 1920 proposal by H.C. Robinson (see p. 170) and recommended preserving for posterity within parks and reserves ‘major biological communities, characteristic landscapes,

KWells_book_3.fm Page 311 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development and Environmentalism

•

311

outstanding features and all species of wildlife’. These areas were expected to provide the full range of environmental services, including protection of soil and water; preservation of fish, timber and economic resources; gene pools for improvements in agriculture and medicine; recreation and tourism; and scientific research to enhance knowledge in tropical science.30 In addition, the government was urged to adopt a National Forestry Policy (NFP), backed by legislation, for protecting steepland and catchments. Recommended also was stabilization of Forest Reserve boundaries, recognizing the 760 m contour as the demarcation between Protection and Production Forests.31 In the light of 13 May 1969 riots and the New Economic Policy (NEP) that aimed at greater national integration, conservationists revived the pre-war idea of fostering nature protection as a catalyst for national integration. The MNS Blue Print identified public responsibility and environmental stewardship with morality and good behaviour, as enshrined in the fifth principle of Rukunegara (‘Articles of Faith of the Nation’) promulgated on 31 August 1970, the anniversary of Independence,. The preservation of representative parts of the natural environment is necessary so that present and future generations will be able to educate themselves about the natural and historical roots from which our pattern of life has emerged. Such knowledge will enhance the people’s regard for their natural heritage, and their appreciation for their country, in accordance with the ‘Rukunegara’. 32

The year 1972 proved a landmark in more ways than one. Besides the Nature Society’s symposium and Blue Print, the same year saw the inauguration of the Malaysian Chapter of the World Wildlife Fund International (WWFM) and the election for the first time of a Malay, Mohamed Khan Momin Khan, as President of MNS.33 The latter event was also significant in the context of the enunciation the same year of the Federal Protection of Wild Life Act. Under it, all States, except Pahang, relinquished control over wildlife to the Federal Game Department, now renamed the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP/PERHILITAN), under Mohamad Khan as DirectorGeneral.34 The 1972 Protection of Wild Life Act provided a federal legislative framework for consolidating management, with better control over poaching. Apart from allowing for ‘protected’ and ‘totally protected’ species of fauna, 35 it incorporated W.E. Stevens’s recommendation for the designation of wildlife protection areas into two basic categories, namely, Wildlife Reserves and Wildlife Sanctuaries. Wildlife Reserves, covering more extensive areas of forest, were deemed multipurpose, serving the needs of catchment and biological protection as well as recreation. Complementing these, more restricted areas constituting wildlife sanctuaries were to be set aside for the protection, specifically, of rare and endangered species and, generally, all fauna and flora.36 Though sanctuaries were inviolate, hunting in reserves was allowed to licence-holders and to Orang Asli

KWells_book_3.fm Page 312 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

312

who were restricted to killing deer, mouse deer, game birds and monkeys for personal consumption.37 The Protection of Wild Life Act harmonized with global initiatives for fauna conservation. In March 1973, IUCN convened on behalf of UNEP (see below) the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). It was backed by scientific programmes, including one for the compilation of a Red Data Book of endangered species. 38 Thailand and the Philippines were among the initial 57 signatories to the convention. Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, the three countries most closely involved in the illegal international wildlife trade in maritime Southeast Asia, were initially unresponsive.39 Malaysia finally joined in October 1977, by which time the global membership had risen to 75 and, by 1989, stood at 101.40 The year 1972 was also important on the broader front and marked the Stockholm UN Conference on the Human Environment, headed by Maurice Strong as Secretary-General. In Keith Caldwell’s words, it ‘legitimised environmental policy as a universal concern among nations, and so created a place for environmental issues on many national agendas where they had been previously unrecognised’.41 The objectives of the Stockholm Conference were reinforced by the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), specifically to address the apparent conflict between development and environmental stewardship. The incorporation of conservation as an integral part of development by aid agencies had significant local impact. In 1974, the Environmental Quality Act was passed by a government anxious to be seen as environmentally proactive and, in the following year, a separate Ministry of Science, Environment and Technology (MOSTE) was created. Courting NGO collaboration, the Environment Minister lauded members of the MNS as ‘part of a worldwide link-up of concerned citizens’ showing sensitivity to environmental change. Government shares your objectives, and we are happy to work together with you to preserve our national treasures and to make the natural heritage and wild life of this country more enduring, varied and interesting.42

Stephen K.T. Yong’s statement was the prelude to official rhetoric on sustainable development. Efforts were made to address international concern over rain forest depletion, using the strategy of cooperation with local NGOs. ENV IRONMENT AL PO L IC Y : REAL O R NOT IO NAL ?

Until the mid-1970s, emphasis by international development agencies on timber and forest-based industries for alleviating under-development was one of the fundamental causes of tropical deforestation.43 In the Peninsula, land development provided the perfect alibi for expanding the timber industry. The extent of log extraction is recorded in one observation that a 2 km sq of forest ‘crosses the Singapore causeway every day on logging trucks!’44 Sustainable production was, thus, the central objective of a UN–FAO sponsored Forest Resource

KWells_book_3.fm Page 313 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development and Environmentalism

•

313

Reconnaissance Survey (FRRS), preparatory to formulating a National Forestry Policy. Based on a 1966 FRRS interpretation of aerial photos, the first National Forest Inventory (1972) provided a comprehensive forest-type and forest resources map, crucial for any meaningful planning.45 Based on the 1972 Forest Inventory, it was predicted that by 1975 virtually all the easily accessible forests in the lowlands outside the National Park, Game Reserves and Sanctuaries, and about a third of the more accessible parts of the hill reserves would have been logged. What remained of the primary forests would be mainly in the central and eastern parts of the Peninsula, in Pahang, Terengganu and Kelantan. 46 In 1971, the National Land Council had formed a National Forestry Council (NFC), chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad and comprising the Chief Ministers (Menteri Besar) of the 13 different Peninsular States. The Council was to facilitate the adoption of a common forest policy for planned production, but State jurisdiction over land and forests proved a stumbling block. Land clearance, stepped up under the Second Malaysia Plan, and a boost to the timber industry, exceeded agricultural needs. Of the aggregate area of lowland forest cleared during 1960, only 58 per cent was estimated to have been actually developed.47 Between 1970 and 1978 the Peninsula lost about 1.1 million ha of forest,48 about 55 per cent to commercial logging and only the remainder to agricultural conversion.49 Following a steady improvement in the external market as of 1970, log output reached 9.6 million cu m in 1973. This was followed by a sharp fall in 1975 to 7.5 million cu m, with a price decline in excess of 20 per cent.50 On taking stock of the industry at this juncture, it was realized that the only means of forcing recovery was by reduced harvesting, conserving timber stands for market improvement in the future. Indeed, there was official recognition that accelerated logging and land conversion, if continued unrestricted would jeopardize the timber industry. As Chairman of the NLC, Mahathir Mohamad drew attention to the mounting crisis of unsustainable production. He acknowledged that between 1971 and 1975 forest clearance at an annual rate of 275,000 ha, instead of the 60,000 ha ear-marked under the Second Malaysia Plan, had outstripped agricultural requirements. At the current rate of clearance timber resources would be depleted in 12 years (1989), he warned. Even if reduced strictly to meet agricultural requirements, stocks could be sustained for no more than 35 years (or 2010), after which the country would become a net importer of logs. 51 This prediction was reiterated by the Forest Department’s 1979 projection, shown below (Table 5), based on substantially lower levels of harvesting. It was clear that, even allowing for technical and silvicultural advances, logging in the 1970s, in excess of 9 million cu m, would not sustain domestic consumption beyond the early 1980s. The situation was described by Mahathir as a ‘crisis in economic growth’. 52 As pointed out by Vincent and Hadi, the statistical correlation between agricultural development and deforestation had broken down. 53 Recognition by government of the economic imperatives of sustainable logging was congenial to the crystallization of Malaysian environmentalism and

KWells_book_3.fm Page 314 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

314

Table 5: Projected log production and domestic consumption in Peninsular Malaysia (million cu m), 1976–2010 Log supply

Projected domestic consumption

Projected shortfall

1976–80

6.9

1.7

+5.2

1981–85

4.5

2.1

+2.4

1986–90

3.7

2.8

+0.9

1991–95

3.7

3.7

0

1996–2000

3.7

4.7

-1.0

2001–05

3.7

6.2

-2.5

2005–10

3.7

8.1

-4.4

Period

Source: Mohd Darus Mahmud (1979), Table 5, p. 341.

its emphasis on the non-timber values of forests.54 Malaysia was representative of the Developing World where, by the mid-1970s, the alarming pace of deforestation obliged development agencies to widen their remit to include social services.55 On the part of the Malaysian government, its initiative to seek the advice of the World Bank on environmental management was underscored by a key chapter dedicated to ‘Development and Environment’ in the Third Malaysia Plan, TMP (1976–80). ‘ It is vital’, acknowledged the TMP, ‘that the objectives of development and environmental conservation be kept in balance, so that the benefits of development are not negated by the costs of environmental change’. Attention was drawn to the potential environmental risks posed by unmanaged land and natural resource development.56 Concern was expressed over the steady depletion of natural forest habitats, essential for the preservation of wildlife and natural scenic areas with recreational potential. Thus, the TMP incorporated the MNS Blue Print for preserving representative samples of the natural forest ecosystem. Under the prevailing policy of land use, conservationists had settled on a pragmatic plan to secure the designation of multi-purpose parks and reserves and government’s acceptance of this compromise was evident in the TMP’s attention to ecosystem conservation. The concept was given political meaning. Conserved areas were envisaged as ‘not only part of the national heritage but … also part of the world heritage’ [my emphasis].57 In addition to the existing reserves and parks constituting 839,653 ha, the TMP proposed a further increase of about 900,000 ha. This would have raised the Totally Protected Area (TPA) from 6.4 to 13.2 per cent of Peninsula Malaysia’s land area. 58 The proposed increase in protected areas encouraged NGO aspirations for saving a modest slice of the cake which development would otherwise devour entirely. The TPA also promised environmental safeguards in Production Forests through

KWells_book_3.fm Page 315 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development and Environmentalism

•

315

improved technology and the use of a greater variety of timber species to reduce wastage.59 The TMP’s tacit acknowledgement that environmental objectives rested on the twin pillars of scientific management and sound legislation gave the NGOs reason for hope. In reality, timber interests overrode the concession made in the TMP to environmental protection. Even after the creation of the Ministry of Environment (MOSTE) the Ministry of Primary Industries continued to administer forestry, deterring its full integration with environmental management. With some 14.4 per cent of the nation’s exports drawn from the timber industry, 60 the government was clearly reluctant to alter the administrative status quo. As the chapter on ‘Environment and Development’ in the TMP stressed, ‘[T]he adoption of environmental protection measures will need always to be in balance with development costs.’61 The National Forestry Policy (NFP), finally introduced in 1978, was probably precipitated by the Endau-Rompin logging crisis (see below). 62 Again, some concessions were made to forest stewardship. In contrast to the Land Classification Survey, which assigned the lowest category of land use to Protection Forests, the NFP took a major step forward in declaring that ‘Protection Forests should never be alienated save in the most exceptional circumstances and after the most careful study.’ Plans for managing Permanent Reserved Forests (PRFs) ‘with the objective of maximizing social, economic and environmental benefits for the nation and its people’63 were totally consistent with the aims of the TMP. Envisaged was rational utilization of forest land, the adoption of sound silvicultural and rehabilitation operations and planned harvesting, finely tuned to the optimum needs of the processing industries.64 In response to the NFP, the National Forestry Council designated categories of forest use. Out of a total of 7.2 million ha of forest land, 5.18 million ha were proposed as PRFs, including ‘Production’ and ‘Protection’ Forests, wildlife reserves and sanctuaries. Out of this, 3.28 million ha was to be dedicated to ‘Production Forests’, as against 1.9 million ha assigned to ‘Protection Forests’. In addition, there was a further 2 million ha set aside for agricultural conversion, by properly scheduled and controlled logging. To this end States were made responsible for limiting forest cutting during the TMP to 141,400 ha annually, including 67,200 ha earmarked for agricultural conversion, and the remaining 74,200 ha set aside for regeneration. Equally relevant to sustainable production was silvicultural research and training and improved technology in woodbased industries, in tandem with promoting bumiputera participation.65 The State governments were considered entirely responsible for protecting PRFs, the cost of management and research to be borne by the Federal government, assisted by the private sector. ‘A firm understanding’ between the Federal and State governments was considered fundamental to the success of the plan, 66 though how this was to be achieved remained uncertain. Conceding to the non-timber value of the forests, the NFP introduced, in addition to the existing categories of ‘Protection’ and ‘Production Forests’, a

KWells_book_3.fm Page 316 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

316

third category of ‘Amenity Forests, for ‘recreation, education, research and the protection of the country’s unique flora and fauna.’67 The revenue priorities of government made some concession to public expectations of environmental services, consonant with improved economic standards. Furthermore, Clause 11 of the policy incorporated the principle originally proposed in the 1952 Interim Forest Policy, for inculcating a public sense of environmental stewardship through information and education.68 Overall, the NFP aimed at improved land use by closer coordination of land conversion for agriculture with timber harvesting.69 As Arshad Ayub, the Director of Agriculture candidly stated, it was imperative that forestry was ‘development oriented, rather than revenue oriented’ [my emphasis]. Agricultural expansion as demonstrated in Negeri Sembilan, for example, suggested the desirability of forest blocks to contain wildlife, thereby reducing their intrusion on cultivated land.70 In fact, difficulties were foreseeable with respect to implementation of the NFP so long as States retained control over forests and exploited them for immediate returns.71 Indeed, a potential setback for the enforcement of policy and legislation was the nature of the Malaysian Federation under which the States retained control over land. This became evident, for example, with reference to the enforcement of the 1972 Wild Life Act. Though it centralized wildlife administration under a Director-General, power to gazette reserves and sanctuaries continued to rest with the States72 and was potentially a stumbling block to achieving the Act’s objectives. Realizing the lack of federal powers for enforcing the environmental policy, the TMP anticipated the need for cooperation. The ultimate aim of the Federal Government working in close cooperation with individual State Governments is to ensure as far as possible that all man’s activities are in balance with his environment.73

While State response to the aims of the TMP remained to be tested, conservation agencies, encouraged by government’s pledge for improved environmental management, set about their task with renewed vigour. In July 1976 the MNS organized a symposium on ‘The Role and Management of National Parks’, at which the Environment Minister reiterated the government’s commitment ‘to reconcile development with the need to protect environment and protect wildlife’.74 Notwithstanding policy enunciations, none of the parks or reserves proposed in the TMP was gazetted due to the lack of federal power. The National Forestry Policy paved the way for the National Forestry Act (NFA), passed in 1984 but was non-binding.75 Enforcement hinges on its translation into legally constituted State laws, consistent with Clause (3), Article 76 of the Federal Constitution. Further, though under the Act the State Director of Forestry is entrusted with full executive powers, he is appointed and is responsible to the State government.76 The Act moreover mentions the Director-General of Forestry only in respect of his receipt of an annual report from the State Director of

KWells_book_3.fm Page 317 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development and Environmentalism

•

317

Forestry.77 His role rests upon provision in Article 94 of the Constitution for experimental research, professional advice and technical assistance by the Forest Department for the benefit of State governments.78 In sum, enforcement of the NFA has been fully reliant on the voluntary commitment of individual States to Federal policies aimed at national good. Prejudicial to this is the entrenchment of patronage and power politics in the forest and wood-based industries, arising largely from the abuse of clause 7 of the NFP for promoting bumiputera participation.79 The NFA also suffers other weaknesses. The concept of multiple-use that it introduced incorporates the functions of production, protection, amenity and research within PRFs, without the provision of a separate category of TPAs to cover parks and reserves.80 Though PRFs can compensate, in part, for the shortfall in areas dedicated to national parks and wildlife reserves, 81 all PRFs are deemed to be for ‘timber production for sustained yield’, unless separately gazetted by the State for other functions.82 This arrangement, apart from allowing for overlapping functions, has facilitated reclassification according to prevailing exigencies. Equally insecure are State Parks, categorized as PRFs. As the Forestry Act asserts clear priority for production,83 which the States have notoriously defended (see Chapter 13), parks and reserves, as a whole, are potentially at risk. GOING ONLY HALF WAY

As deforestation accelerated, global environmental advocacy had an important bearing on the Peninsula’s affairs. The government’s environmental policy was an astute response to international pressure for adopting environment safeguards and lent legitimacy to NGO advocacy at home. Of particular import was the Belgrade Charter drawn up at the UNESCO International Environmental Education Workshop of October 1975. The Charter recognized that technical progress and economic growth, while bringing benefits to many, were contributing to environmental degradation, poverty and inequality. To arrest this trend, the Charter adopted the objective enunciated in the UN Declaration for a New Economic Order, based on a new global ethic, to foster fairer distribution of world resources. It advocated an alternative mode of development aimed at reducing environmental damage and the utilization of waste materials for productive purposes by creating appropriate technologies.84 In 1976, following from the Belgrade Charter, Maurice Strong as first Executive Director of UNEP coined the term ‘eco-development’. Implicit in the concept is its focus on ensuring that society’s basic needs are met on a sustainable basis.85 The Belgrade Charter’s emphasis on environmental education informed the programme for schools launched by MNS and WWFM. The WWFM-sponsored ‘Save the Jungle International Campaign’ was backed by audio-visual programmes, wall charts, posters and simple educational literature.86

KWells_book_3.fm Page 318 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

318

Malaysia was also drawn into the UN’s eco-development initiative through UNESCO’s Man and Biosphere programme (MAB) that superseded the IBP, which had been largely concerned with basic research in the ecology of the tropics. The term ‘biosphere’, which the programme brought into vogue, is perceived as embracing ‘all life and the environment supporting it.’ 87 The MAB programme, like the IBP, was centred on selecting for study, particularly in the threatened tropics, representative samples of the tropical rain forest, constituted as Biosphere Reserves. Such reserves were also to include human-modified landscapes, enabling scientists, in the first instance, to compare and contrast disturbed forests with primary forests but, ultimately, ‘to evaluate the optimal ways for man to intervene in tropical rain forests.’88 The MAB programme’s attention to the interrelation between environment and human activity within specific areas implied a new interdisciplinary stance. A number of projects were initiated in the Peninsula and in Borneo, involving local and foreign scholars. On the Indonesian side, the MAB programme resulted in research and training aimed at the better management of different types of ecosystems, or what has been termed ‘human use systems’.89 In Malaysia, however, there was no comparable shift towards holistic, multi-disciplinary case studies on social usage of the forest. In the Pasoh forest MAB continued to confine research to the natural sciences, as did the Royal Society’s Southeast Asian Rainforest Research programme in Sabah’s Danum Valley Reserve. In the latter, the initial phase (1985–93) was devoted to collecting basic data on the eco-system of largely undisturbed forest, and the next phase (1994–99) to determining the effects of logging and ways of restoring logged forest, as part of the UK Overseas Development Authority’s overall forest management objectives.90 The project took no account of the economic impact of logging on forest people. The nature of scientific initiatives was evidently constrained by the Malaysian government’s use of the Internal Security Act to impose a virtual moratorium on airing politically sensitive issues such as the fate of forest-dwelling communities, including the Penan of Sarawak.91 This effectively ruled out close scrutiny of the socio-economic impact of deforestation on tribal communities. In the 1970s, FAO and IUCN collaborated on reviewing living resources and proposing adequate measures for their conservation. Reservation of 10 per cent of the national territory was suggested as a reasonable target for purposes of species protection.92 As a sequel to this initiative and the IBP and Man and Biosphere Programmes, in 1980 the World Conservation Strategy (WCS) was launched by IUCN in cooperation with UNEP and WWF. By representing the input of over a thousand scientists from all over the world and the expertise of FAO and UNESCO, the Strategy aimed at safeguarding ‘the long-term health of the earth’s ecosystem’. Integral to the programme was preservation of forests as a sustainable resource for maintaining climate regimes and biodiversity. The programme encouraged the preservation of habitats, particularly of economically valuable species, endangered species and unique species. 93

KWells_book_3.fm Page 319 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development and Environmentalism

•

319

The issue of moral principles was identified as relating particularly to species extinction that would undermine the potential for developing new varieties of crops and domesticated animals. In the case of Peninsular Malaysia, the importance of fauna for crop pollination cannot be overstressed. Outstanding is the role of bats (cecadu gua: Eonycteris spelaea; keluang: Pteropus vampyrus) in the fruiting of the much sought after and economically lucrative durian (Durio spp.), a feature of high forests. Among a variety of other crops pollinated by birds and insects is the banana, basic to the local diet. Consistent with the aims of the WCS, in 1985 the UNEP Executive Director, Mostafa Tolba, made two important statements in his address to the Second Committee of the 40th UN General Assembly. First, that if tropical forests were to play their role in the biosphere, they must remain the dominant vegetation cover in the original realm. Second, that those countries so endowed should be assisted in conserving them.94 This argument was later used by Malaysia as a bargaining chip in international environmental policy debates (see p. 369). The principles and aims of the WCS were based on a definition of conservation as biosphere management for meeting the needs of present and future generations. Malaysia was not a signatory to the programme and such aims as it expressed in the TMP and NFP with reference to environmental protection did not affect land clearance. Even in the face of declining forest stock, and despite the availability of some 890,000 ha of cleared land that remained unused, FELDA planned more land conversion.95 In many instances, the bid by land development agencies for contiguous blocks of agricultural land was based on inaccurate and unreliable Land Classification Surveys, which took insufficient account of physical characteristics, such as steep land, accessibility and infrastructure. The unsuitability, in many instances, of cleared land for cultivation increased the aggregate of degraded and abandoned land and encouraged migration in search of urban employment.96 Writing about the implications of the National Agricultural Policy on forest resources, the Director of Agriculture called for greater emphasis on in situ agricultural development involving existing smallholdings, rather than forest conversion for plantations. However, the Federal Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation Authority (FELCRA), created with the specific aim of upgrading smallholder agriculture, had not made significant progress in persuading farmers to utilize their land fully.97 Fragmentation of land to below economically viable units and absentee landlordism posed additional problems in Negeri Sembilan and Kedah, especially. Under the government’s Integrated Agricultural Development Programme (IADP), efforts were made in Kedah to coordinate and upgrade existing agriculture. IADP was concerned mainly with the improvement of irrigation, based upon securing the protection of catchments. The Pedu Dam, at the head of Kedah River, and the Muda Dam, servicing the Merbuk and Muda Rivers, were the key to State irrigation, which made protection of the Hulu Muda catchment

KWells_book_3.fm Page 320 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

320

and the peripheral forests critical. These areas were envisaged as potentially muti-purpose Wildlife Reserves but the necessary coordination of the relevant State agencies was lacking.98 A further departure from principles enshrined in the World Conservation Strategy pertained to EIA, which the 1980 Brandt Commission considered fundamental to environmental stewardship.99 In the Peninsula, the 1974 Environmental Quality Act made no provision for EIA assessment for land development, a major contributing factor to pollution.100 A 1985 Amendment to the Act became effective in January 1986101 but exempted on-going schemes and those already on the drawing board. Only as of 1 April 1988 did EIAs become mandatory. According to the Director-General of Forestry, during the decade that followed not a single EIA report for forest harvesting was submitted.102 Compromises made with regard to EIA and the consequent gap between declared policy and actual enforcement was rooted in the government’s determination not to put economic performance at risk. Furthermore, it would appear that some States did not consider themselves legally bound by Federal legislation.103 Within this situation, the initiative for encouraging individual States to foster holistic planning and integrated development, in line with the World Conservation Strategy, was assumed by WWFM. It designed State Conservation Strategies (SCS) for Negeri Sembilan (1982), Melaka and Terengganu (1983), Kedah and Perlis (1984), Selangor (1988) and Kelantan (1991), though Perak, Pahang and Johor were unreceptive.104 NGOs AND PUBLIC PROTEST

The essence of traditional Malay political culture, as discussed earlier, was based on natural resource exploitation.105 The Malay ruling class, which joined the mainstream of modernization largely as a rentier class, 106 sought new opportunities for wealth accumulation in land development and the timber industry. Furthermore, control over land and forest resources placed in the hands of State authorities, especially the Chief Ministers, unprecedented power, often utilized for political leverage at local and national levels. The widespread use of the state apparatus for capital accumulation gave rise to a politically influential class of ‘statist capitalists’, particularly in the timberrich east coast States.107 While a large number of Western-educated senior government civil servants and politicians based in Kuala Lumpur were generally more sensitive to national issues, State authorities were often caught in the web of local politics. With land development playing the lead role in the politics of the rural areas dominated by the majority bumiputera populace, grants and concessions of all description were based on political criteria, following election cycles.108 Timber concessions became an effective means of winning political loyalties, boosting State revenues and even seeking Federal favour by improving export earnings from bigger harvests.109 The 1977 Endau-Rompin controversy manifested the liberty taken by State governments for exercising rights and privileges for business and political ends,

KWells_book_3.fm Page 321 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development and Environmentalism

•

321

often in defiance of national policy. The Endau-Rompin area incorporated the Endau-Keluang Wild Life Reserve in Johor and the Lesong Forest Reserve on the Pahang side of the border.110 With an average annual rainfall of 177.8 cm, the area was an important catchment for the relatively dry south Pahang-Johor region. Under the TMP, provision was made to upgrade selected areas, including the Endau-Rompin Forest Reserves as a national park, not excluding logging in selected areas.111 In accordance with this, the Federal government had arrived at an informal agreement with the State governments of Pahang and Johor, which share the Endau-Rompin catchment, to limit logging operations to the periphery of the reserve.112 The move suggested the Federal government’s endeavour to abide by the spirit of the proposed National Parks Act (see p. 344). Contravening the understanding with the Federal government, the Pahang government issued licences for logging 12,141 ha within the core area of the proposed park rich in damar minyak (Agathis borneensis ), high on the list of preferred commercial species.113 The activity put at risk particularly the Pahang Tenggara development scheme, reliant on Endau-Rompin catchment supplies.114 The issue precipitated the first large-scale environmental campaign mounted by Malaysian NGOs. From being largely a lobbying agency hitherto, MNS took on the mantle of public campaigning, alongside the more radical and vociferous Sahabat Alam Malaysia (see below). In response to NGO criticism of the licences issued for logging in the EndauRompin area, the State Secretary reportedly claimed: ‘We are all lovers of nature but when it comes to choosing between human welfare and animal survival, the [S]tate had to opt for the former.’ Not fully comprehending the concept of a national park, he allegedly remarked: ‘The Pahang State Government does not object to the setting up of a National Park, but only after the State has fully exploited its economic potential.’115 Indifferent to environmental issues, the Chief Minister claimed, ‘We do not think we have done anything injurious.’ 116 Protest against logging in Endau-Rompin Reserves soon drew attention to related issues of the alleged involvement of politicians and bureaucrats in land and timber concessions. Such matters were subsumed within the remit of environmental stewarding, which otherwise had little opportunity for expression in a climate of media censorship against ‘sensitive issues’ involving abuse of power by bumiputera elite. Moreover, the challenge to Federal policy, implicit in Pahang’s action, stood the activists in good stead. The MNS’s campaign against logging in the reserve climaxed with some 4,000 signatures supporting a petition to the Pahang State Government, channelled through the Prime Minister’s Office.117 The dynamism of the press was crucial for garnering public support on a scale unprecedented and signified a new thrust towards democratization of environmental issues. For the first time the Malay press entered the conservation debate, engaging the interest of organizations like the UMNO and the National Association of Muslim Students.118 The New Straits Times gave wide coverage to the Endau-Rompin issue, probably helped by the

KWells_book_3.fm Page 322 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

322

good relations of its editor with Prime Minister Hussein Onn.119 Two household favourites, the columnist, Adibah Amin, and the cartoonist, ‘Lat’ (Mohamed Nor Khalid), contributed their respective skills to gaining popular support for the campaign.120 The MNS simultaneously appealed to international organizations like IUCN, a move that the central government would not have appreciated under different circumstances. The IUCN, in turn, appealed to Hussein Onn, who acceded to a joint meeting with five voluntary organizations including MNS, the Environmental Protection Society of Malaysia (EPSM) and the Malayan Forestry Society. 121 Opinions condemning the Pahang State government’s actions, perceived as motivated by profits from logging, were freely expressed in the press. On the basis of a survey it conducted, MNS calculated that no more than about a thousand people would directly benefit from the logging activities – and that for a year at most. The State government’s lack of transparency, challenged by a call by the Malay press for open dialogue, was ignored.122 Instead, Pahang severed communications with the press at the height of the controversy. 123 It was left to S.T. Sundram, the Deputy Secretary-General of MOSTE, to assure the public that the Pahang State government was being persuaded to review its stand. 124 The Minister of Environment, who visited the reserve, acknowledged the seriousness of the damage inflicted by logging operations on reserves and the threat to wildlife, particularly the rare Sumatran rhino.125 Managed by a Singapore syndicate that had reportedly paid M$5 million for the concession, the logging operations allegedly were conducted indiscriminately. Under a contract to log some 12,000 ha in one year, the concessionaire worked at a frenetic pace against public pressure calling a halt to operations.126 A 43-km logging track, as wide as a highway, was constructed leading to one of the logging camps. An average of 400 ha a week were logged127 and 10-wheel lorries conveyed the timber to the sawmills. The construction of logging roads blocked off dozens of streams, and tuba (Derris spp.) fishing by loggers polluted many rivers.128 Gurmit Singh, one of Malaysia’s pioneer environmental campaigners and founder of EPSM, claimed that the Endau-Rompin issue highlighted the crisis in environmental stewarding. The situation, he observed, called for a re-evaluation of national policies regarding three fundamental aspects of development, namely, protection of ecosystems; preservation of rivers integral to rural life; and proper planning of land development schemes.129 In contrast to the broader aims of environmental reform that motivated the activists, the Federal government’s stand on the Endu-Rompin issue was influenced as much by concern over timber depletion as the desire to curb State power. ‘We must bear in mind how serious the implications will be to the nation’s socio-economic stability if the timber industry suffers,’ warned Mahathir.130 When the Pahang government stubbornly stood its ground and proceeded to issue licences for a further 2,188 ha, the Federal government was placed in a dilemma. To challenge State power would put too much at risk,

KWells_book_3.fm Page 323 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development and Environmentalism

•

323

20. Logging and land development i. Forest, cleared and burned for oil palm, north of Kuala Terengganu (T.C. Whitmore) ii. Timber lorries, Labis, Johor (T.C. Whitmore)

KWells_book_3.fm Page 324 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

324

particularly as environmental issues could potentially jeopardize Federal-State cooperation on development schemes. Anxious to avoid direct confrontation with the State, the Federal government rejected the proposal of an UMNO representative in Parliament, Mohamed Sopiee Sheikh Ibrahim, to suspend Federal financial allocations as a means of forcing Pahang’s hand. Neither was Kuala Lumpur prepared to take the unprecedented step of using Article 83 of the Constitution for acquiring State Land for purposes of national interest.131 Anxious to avoid any step that might threaten political stability, the Federal government simply imposed a ban on the export of logs from Endau-Rompin. 132 Left with no option but to clamp down on operations in the park and suspend licensing, the Pahang Government advertised the move as the State’s conciliatory response to conservationist appeals.133 The Federal strategy paid off and temporarily saved the core of the reserve from degradation. In 1984, logging in Endau-Rompin resumed and, upon the central government’s failure to persuade the respective States to gazette the area as a national park, environmental NGOs again rallied to the cause. In 1985, to widen awareness of the scientific value of the area, the MNS in cooperation of the Star newspaper launched the ‘The Malayan Scientific and Heritage Expedition’, the first full-scale biological exploration of the area. Under the patronage of Tunku Abdul Rahman, the country’s first Prime Minister and a widely acknowledged symbol of nationhood, the expedition attracted extensive media publicity and coverage. Hundreds of school children were given the opportunity to visit the expeditionary site to savour the wealth of the forest.134 Unimpressed by the show of public sentiment over the value of the EndauRompin Reserves, Johor rescinded the promise it made in 1979 to donate its share of the area for the creation of a national park. Like Pahang, it decided to retain the area for timber exploitation.135 Only in 1987, after logging the best timber, did the two States settle on a compromise for converting the area to adjoining State Parks, under separate jurisdiction.136 Though formally committed to conserving Endau-Rompin, both States have been biased towards tourist development137 and the parks remain unprotected by the National Parks Act of 1980 (see p. 344). As a New Straits Times editorial observed, the Endau-Rompin episode ‘rais[ed] the spectre of State Governments retreating into parochialism when the national purpose should have been served.’138 The episode further exposed the extent to which State timber politics were taking centre stage in national affairs. As B.H. Shafruddin’s analysis of the episode shows,139 the web of political patronage within which the timber industry was enmeshed proved hard to unravel, given the nature of the Malaysian federation and centre-periphery power relations and rivalries. The situation was not helped by the apparent indifference of political actors at State level to their custodial role in biosphere protection. The political backlash of the Endau-Rompin issue provided the Federal government with an opportunity for conducting a cautionary cleaning-up

KWells_book_3.fm Page 325 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development and Environmentalism

•

325

operation in Pahang. The new Chief Minister was instructed to scrutinize timber and other land concessions, now restricted to public corporations rather than individuals.140 This did not fundamentally alter the politicization of forest and timber management that rested, ultimately, not with the forest service but with the State Executive Committee and Legislative Assembly, the twin arenas where power rivalries were hotly contested. The Endau-Rompin issue exposed weaknesses in the political culture, creating a forum for the re-evaluation of social values apropos natural heritage. A two-part feature article published at the height of the controversy in the popular Malay daily, Utusan Malaysia, took the reader through the passage of time, blending historical sentiment with scientific rationality. The assault on the environment was perceived as a threat to the heritage of the once mighty Melaka Empire and the landscape that shaped the heroic lives of the early Malay nationalists. Forest loss and the consequent pollution of key river systems at the heart of rural life were attributed to obsession with materialism and lack of engagement with scientific endeavour. Research on the invaluable dipterocarp forest was under-subscribed, the article pointed out, while funding was invested in planting non-indigenous pine forests. Administrators ensconced in airconditioned offices were accused of indifference to the state of the environment, and foresters were blamed for failing to put their expensive overseas training to good use. Environmental degradation, it was argued, reflected a negative and apathetic social mentality.141 Like Endau-Rompin, the threatened status of Taman Negara demonstrated that, formal policy notwithstanding, environmental protection was subject to constant negotiation. As early as 1970, Pahang’s proposal for logging the park alerted the attention of biologists committed to protecting its inherent value as a national heritage. The central issues involved were summed up in a memorandum addressed by members of the School of Biological Sciences, University of Malaya, to the Minister of Lands and Mines. Emphasized was Malaysia’s position at the heart of Sundaland,142 harbouring the most complex and diverse terrestrial ecosystem, and Taman Negara’s representation of this unique habitat. Of particular concern was protection of the lowlands of the Tembeling-Tahan valley, an integral part of an approximate 10 per cent of the park below the steepland boundary.143 Preservation of its diversity was invaluable, ecologists argued, not least for scientific research of potential economic value such as biological crop control.144 International scientists added their support for protecting the National Park, and an American naturalist warned Malaysia of the danger of repeating the error of the USA in its failure to protect critical biota in the race to develop. 145 Subsequently, armed with a new survey to emphasize the scientific and educational value of the park, the MNS invoked clause 3 (i) of the original National Park Act, which guarantees protection and preservation of indigenous fauna and flora.146 In 1972, Taman Negara’s fate again hung in the balance following a technical aid agreement signed by Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak (1970–76) with

KWells_book_3.fm Page 326 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

326

Russia for constructing a US$86 million hydroelectric dam on the upper reaches of the Tembeling, within the park’s boundaries. The project was purportedly for new sources of energy to support the country’s rapid industrialization and for mitigating floods on the scale experienced in 1971. The dam, scheduled for construction during 1978–80, was opposed by NGOs on the grounds that no comprehensive EIA study had been conducted. At issue was the proposed submersion of about 70 per cent of Taman Negara’s lowland forest, tantamount to a national disaster because so little comparable forest remained elsewhere in the Peninsula.147 Environmentalists pressing for the creation of more reserves and parks and for the security of existing ones were alarmed and outraged. The MNS contended that as the proposed dam would silt up in about 30 years, it would exacerbate rather than mitigate flooding. 148 The dam was also predicted to unleash socio-economic problems. It was argued that, apart from displacing some 5,000 people, the dam infrastructure would facilitate access by illegal loggers. The preferred alternative was the proposal by an Australian team of consulting engineers to flood five smaller alternative sites, outside the National Park, for proportionately larger supplies of electricity. Moreover, the team’s ‘Pahang River Basin Study’ (1974) commissioned by the government, confirmed apprehensions over the destruction of lowland habitat; its impact on animal life; the loss of agricultural land; and the socio-cultural implications of human resettlement.149 Domestic advocacy was strengthened by international support. IUCN and the World Bank communicated their concern over the potential ecological and sociological impact.150 The contribution of the EndauRompin campaign towards broadening the base of public support, and the subsequent promise from the Minister of Science Technology and Environment to protect designated areas,151 contributed to the suspension of the project in 1970. In 1982 the Tembeling Dam project was revived by the new Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad, as part of an effort to shore up the economy in the face of the world recession.152 The MNS appealed to the Prime Minister, and EPSM with other NGOs coordinated a public protest.153 Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM) claimed to have collected around 45,000 signatures for its petition and a total of 11 societies, backed by a membership of around 100,000, mounted a massive press campaign.154 ‘It is not a question of opposing development but of opposing wanton destruction,’ argued the MNS. Was it sound policy, it asked, to lose 250 sq km of National Park forest to the Tembeling dam for 110 MW when the combined loss of 192 sq km of forest to the Kenering, Bersia and Temengor dams, in Perak, had secured a production capacity of 540 MW power?155 Following a review, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Primary Industries, Musa Hitam, finally conceded that available power sources were sufficient to meet existing needs156 and the Tembeling project was again shelved. Importantly, the national protest alerted the people of Pahang to the tourist potential of the Tembeling, contributing to a firmer resolve to preserve its sanctity.157

KWells_book_3.fm Page 327 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development and Environmentalism

•

327

In 1986, the status of Taman Negara entered public debate for the fourth time. Controversial was the government proposal to construct a jeep track from the park headquarters at Kuala Tahan to Kuala Teku to facilitate tourist access for mountaineers to the foot of Gunung Tahan. NGO response, based on an appraisal of the ecological and economic impacts of the proposed project, was summed up in a memorandum addressed by MNS to the Ministry of Environment. The government was warned about the high cost of road construction and maintenance and, crucially, damage to one of the few relics of lowland forest and wildlife habitat that would diminish the wilderness qualities sought by visitors to the park. The road would also constitute an intrusion into the lifestyle and livelihood of the residual hunter-gatherer Batek communities for whom the park provided a sanctuary.158 The MNS, which viewed the scheme as counter-productive, argued that money would be better spent on increasing visitor attractions, including the improvement of existing park facilities.159 WWFM’s appointment by the Economic Planning Unit to coordinate a collaborative EIA assessment by environmental NGOs spoke for the Federal government’s decision to be conciliatory. The report successfully undermined the official rationale for the proposed jeep track: [T]he desirability … ultimately depends on personal judgements about tourism and wilderness values, and on economic judgements about returns on investment through tourism. Evidence from the Park’s Visitor’s books, the press and environmentally oriented societies and groups shows unequivocally that the jeep-track is a matter of major public concern.160

The Federal government, which saw reserve and park maintenance as a demonstrable means of fulfilling its obligation towards environmental protection, was less predictable in its response to pressure for restraint in other areas of development, such as dam construction. Thus, given that hydroelectric power is environmentally friendlier than fuel, neither NGOs nor project consultants were opposed to dam building per se. As one environmentalist put it with reference to the Tembeling: The choice between building a [d]am or not building it does not amount to having to choose between development and stagnation. It is not a question of keeping Pahang backward or asking the residents of [Hulu] Tembeling to remain content with their present lot … .These are but red herrings because safe alternatives are available but only if the project proponents are willing to identify clearly why the energy is needed, where it will actually be used, who it will really benefit, etc.161

Whereas Taman Negara’s prestige as the Peninsula’s only national park helped to secure its preservation, environmentalists were cognizant that criticism of dam construction in general could be construed as anti-developmental. Hence, NGO efforts focused on ensuring sound feasibility and EIA studies to reduce negative environmental impact. Premised on this criterion, criticism was

KWells_book_3.fm Page 328 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

328

restricted to the lack of transparency with reference to the construction of a hydroelectric dam sited on the Terengganu River at Kuala Kenyir. Based on a Colombo Plan study, the project, begun in 1977, was completed in 1983. It was sponsored by the Australian Government and was contracted to the Australian consultants, Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, and several Korean companies.162 Because the issue came to public attention at a time when the fate of NGO opposition to the Tembeling dam still hung in the balance, conservationists accepted the fait accompli with good grace, advocating the desirability of smaller, rather than bigger dams.163 The environmental impact of the Kenyir Dam, nonetheless, was significant. Inundation of over 36,450 ha included 4,050 ha of the valuable Terengan valley bottom in Taman Negara. Neither was the infringed area degazetted nor the park area extended in compensation. Furthermore, insufficient time allowed for timber harvesting before impoundment resulted in revenue loss through undercutting, taking out only the expensive timbers. Infrastructure for the dam also provided access to illegal timber and NTFP extraction in Taman Negara. 164 The dam’s impact on wildlife was sooner and more extensive than anticipated, largely because seasonal flooding extended the size of the lake, affecting fringe forests. In October 1983, when the lake basin flooded at the onset of the northeast monsoon, there were reports of distressed wildlife and floating carcasses. 165 About 57 representative species, including some 70,000 primates out of a total of around 800,000 mammals, were estimated to have been lost in the impoundment zone. Many of the mammals were crowded onto isolated patches of hilltops surrounded by rising floodwaters. NGOs were resigned to supporting the rescue operations mounted by the DWNP for relocating elephants and monkeys endangered by the inundation.166 A typical operation by the department involved the attempt to save 13 elephants trapped in a space of 500 m x 300 m at Kampung Bulai. Another area affected by the overcrowding of animals was Pulau Besar, which in addition to the existing stock of about 20 elephants received later translocations, bringing the total number to at least 57 elephants. By 1990, the area was overstocked and villagers reported increased crop damage. 167 In time, the impact of the Kenyir Dam on human settlement became apparent. In the process of relocation more than one hundred Orang Asli lost their traditional livelihood from NTFP. Over 1,000 ha of RISDA’s oil palm estate at Sungai Gawi were also damaged.168 In environmental terms, the predicted impact became a reality in the form of reduced flood flow detrimental to lowland agriculture and the gradual silting up of the river mouth by beach sand, damaging to coastal navigation. Overall, the fish population suffered the impact of ecological change.169 After the initial boost to employment and business, Kuala Berang returned to being a backwater and, in the flood plains, damage to irrigation forced farmers to switch from paddy to maize and tobacco cultivation. The formation of coastal sandbanks affected river navigation and undermined livelihoods. Up at the reservoir, the decaying debris of vegetation

KWells_book_3.fm Page 329 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development and Environmentalism

•

329

and the release of hydrogen sulphide meant that Kuala Berang had to pay for treatment of its drinking water. Vegetation decay, causing serious deoxidation below the surface layer, up to about a metre, threatened aquatic life. Hopes that the dam would increase access to Taman Negara and encourage tourism were supplanted by fears of poaching and unauthorized encroachment arising from shortfalls in supervision and surveillance. For security reasons, the National Electricity Board, too, was reluctant to encourage tourism at Kenyir. There were now serious doubts about the feasibility of multi-purpose dams. 170 Among the old projects resurrected to stave off the economic recession was the development of the Genting Highlands, mooted originally in 1965 by Haji Noah, the influential Malay businessman and father-in-law of Prime Minister Abdul Razak. In 1981, Genting Bhd., a private development company accused of having ‘an appalling record of destroying the environment’, acquired from the Pahang and Selangor governments 4,903 ha of prime mountain forest in the headwaters of the Gombak River. The inclusion of 1,114 ha of Forest Reserve, along the Bunga Buah ridge, was in disregard of the protests and pleas of forestry officials. Out of this expanse of mountain green, the company’s plans for a casino and highland resort set aside a mere 326 ha for conservation. Even hill-ridge vegetation was not spared during the course of the development and forests were cleared far in excess of the demands of road construction. The principle of water catchment and slope protection enunciated in the Land Conversion Act (1960) was ignored and no EIA was undertaken.171 Public sensitivity over development in the Genting Highlands was heightened by the alarming effects of the Karak Highway construction on the Gombak River. Here the silt load was estimated to have increased one hundred fold. 172 By 1984, soil erosion attributed to forest felling, was attested to have reached an alltime high in the Peninsula. At about 1,000 kg/ha/year, with losses of over 80,000 kg/ha/year under bare-soil conditions, erosion was described as well above generally accepted levels.173 Heavy logging practices, involving extraction of 45 cu m per ha, and damage from road construction aggravated soil erosion. In Cameron Highlands, water yields were significantly affected by conversion of forest land to agriculture. Studies revealed dry spell yields reduced by up to 75 per cent. 174 Unprecedented economic growth and an expanding population, which at 11.4 million in 1980 had doubled since Independence,175 were taking a heavy toll on the forests. As the original conservation target for maintaining maximum forest cover proved unattainable, local environmental NGOs anticipated IUCN’s move to seek the gazetting of selected areas as ‘eco-parks’ for their scientific, recreational and aesthetic value. This conservation strategy, which had its provenance in the pre-war National Park campaign, became a core feature of Malaysian environmentalism as more forest was lost to land development, expansion of public infrastructure and dams. The National Forestry Policy (1978) and Forestry Act (1984), which formed the substance of Malaysia’s environmental policy, lent pre-eminence to timber

KWells_book_3.fm Page 330 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

330

interests while conceding to some environmental safeguards. Domestic environmental advocacy, not totally at variance with the nation’s ambitious development agenda, was focused on guarding the inviolacy of parks and reserves and bringing public opinion and the power of the press to bear on unregulated practices. In line with this strategy, activism was premised on forest protection for integrated, sustainable development, a concept the fast evolving middle class readily responded to. NOTES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Quoted in The National Echo, 30 Aug. 1977. Koppes, ‘Efficiency, equity, esthetics: Shifting themes in American conservation’, pp. 240, 234; C.R. Humphrey and F. H. Buttel, Environment, Energy, and Society, Malabar, Florida, 1988: Krieger Publishing, p. 119. Worster, Nature’s Economy, p. 294. Robertson, People and the State, p. 15. The Tennessee Valley Project, for optimum land use, was inspired by the Secretary of the Interior, Herold L. Ickes. Koppes. ‘Efficiency, equity, esthetics’, pp. 230–251. Koppes, ‘Efficiency, equity, esthetics’, p. 241. Ibid., pp. 242–243. D. Hays, Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: The Progressive Conservation Movement,1890–1920, Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press, 1959; R. White, ‘American environmental history: The development of a new historical field’, Pacific Historical Review, 54 (1985) pp. 298–299. G. Hardin, ‘The tragedy of the commons’, Science, 162, 13 Dec. 1968, pp. 243–248. Sheail, Seventy-Five Years in Ecology, pp. 230–231. ‘A Blue Print for Survival’, Ecologist, 2, ii (1972), pp. 2–4. Ibid., pp. 8–18. W. M. Adams, Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in the Third World, London: Routledge, 1990, pp. 1–2, 196–197. Aiken and Leigh, Vanishing Rain Forests, p. 82. C.H. Leigh and K.S. Low, ‘The flood hazard in Peninsular Malaysia’, Pacific Viewpoint, 19, i (1978) pp. 30–33; Editorial, ‘Floods 1971’, MNJ, 25 (1972) pp. 1–3. Taib Mahmud, ‘Opening Address’, in Soepadmo and Singh (eds), Proceedings of the Symposium on Biological Resources and National Development, p.1. Leigh and Low, ‘The flood hazard in Peninsular Malaysia’, p. 32. NST, 18 Jan. 1972, quoted in C.H. Leigh and K.S. Low, ‘An appraisal of the flood situation in West Malaysia’, in Soepadmo and Singh (eds), Proceedings of the Symposium on Biological Resources and National Development, p. 57. E.F. Bruenig, ‘Deforestation and its ecological implications for the rain forests in South East Asia’, in The Future of Tropical Rain Forests in South-East Asia, Commission on Ecology, IUCN, Ecologist, 5, Supplement No. 10 (1985) p. 23. Leigh and Low, ‘The flood hazard in Peninsular Malaysia’, p. 54. Second Malaysia Plan, p. 141. Editorial, ‘Protection of the environment’, Malayan Naturalist, 1, iii (1975) p. 1. R.P.C. Morgan, ‘Estimating regional variations in soil erosion hazard in Peninsular Malaysia’, MNJ, 28, ii (1974) pp. 101–103. Editorial, ‘Protection of the environment’, Malayan Naturalist, 1, iii (1975) p. 2. ‘Report of the 25th Annual General Meeting [of the MNS], 1971–2’, MNJ, 27, i (1974) p. 72. See ‘ A Blue Print for Conservation in Peninsular Malaysia’, MNJ, 27, i (1974) pp. 1–19. ‘A Blue Print for Conservation in Peninsular Malaysia’, p. 1. J.A. Bullock, Preface, in Soepadmo and Singh (eds), Proceedings of the Symposium on Biological Resources and National Development, p. iii; Bullock, President of the Malayan Nature Society, ‘Opening Speech’, ibid., p. 1.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 331 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development and Environmentalism 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

51 52 53 54

•

331

Ibid., p. 2. Ong Kee Hui, ‘Closing Address’, Proceedings of the Symposium, p. 175. Burgess, ‘Ecological factors in hill and mountain forests’, p. 128.’ ‘A Blueprint for Conservation in Peninsular Malaysia’, pp. 1–4. Ibid, p. 16. ‘Ibid, p. 4. ‘Report of the 25th Annual General Meeting [of the MNS], 1971–2’, p. 71. ‘Protection of Wild Life Act 1972’, Laws of Malaysia, Act 76, Effective 1 Jan. 1973. The Act listed 34 mammal species as ‘totally protected’ and 35 as ‘protected’. In addition, 465 bird species were listed as ‘totally protected’ and 60 as ‘protected’. ‘Protection of Wild Life Act, 1972’, Laws of Malaysia, Act 76. Stevens, ‘The conservation of wildlife in West Malaysia’, p. 81; ‘Protection of Wild Life Act 1972’, Clause 47. ‘Protection of Wild Life Act, 1972’, Clause 48 (2a) and Clause 52. ‘World Wild Life Fund News, June 1976’, in Malayan Naturalist, 3, i and ii (1976) pp. 6–7. For more on the IUCN Red Data Book Series that classifies species into four categories, namely, ‘extinct’, ‘endangered’, ‘vulnerable’ and ‘not threatened’, see Caldwell, International Environmental Policy, pp. 284–285. H. Doggett, ‘Conservation and the convention on international trade in endangered species’, Malayan Naturalist, 2, iii and iv (1976) pp. 10–12. ‘CITES’, Malayan Naturalist, 34, iii (1981) p. 11; Caldwell, International Environmental Policy, p. 284. K. Caldwell, quoted in Nicholson, The New Environmental Age, p. 110. News Desk, Malayan Naturalist, 2, i (1975) p. 2. Whitmore, Tropical Rain Forests of the Far East, pp. 267–268. Burgess, ‘The effects of logging on hill dipterocarp forests’, p. 231. Salleh Mohd Nor, ‘Forest Management’, in Cranbrook (ed.), Key Environments, pp. 126–127. ‘Management planning and operational control of mechanized harvesting systems for the utilization of the national rain forest resources’, Forest Development, Peninsular Malaysia, UNDP, FAO Report, FO: DP/MAL/75/012, Kuala Lumpur, 1978, p. 10. Vincent and Rozali, Environment and Development, p. 119. See Appendix 1. ‘Management planning and operational control of mechanized harvesting systems’, UNDP, FAO Report,1978, p. 5. See Appendix 2. Between 1974 and 1975 there was a 15.5 per cent drop in wood production. H. Brookfield and Y. Byron, ‘Deforestation and timber extraction in Borneo and the Malay Peninsula: The record since 1965’, Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions, 1, i (1990), Table 1, p. 47; Third Malaysia Plan 1976–1980, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1976, p. 13. ‘Dr. Mahathir’s warning on shortage of timber supply’, 30 Aug. 1977, NST; National Echo, 30 Aug. 1977. ‘Mahathir on uncontrolled logging of our forests’, quoted in ‘What the papers say’, Malayan Naturalist, 4, i (1977) p. 4; Shafruddin, The Federal Factor, p. 312. J.R. Vincent and Yusuf Hadi, ‘Malaysia’, in Sustainable Agriculture and the Environment in the Humid Tropics, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1992, p. 456. Among the more important environmental NGOs are the Malayan/Malaysian Nature Society; World Wildlife Fund Malaysia, established in 1972, renamed World Wide Fund for Nature in 1986; and the Consumer’s Association of Penang (CAP). The last was founded in 1969 by the Penang businessman, Mohammed Idris, a follower of the American environmentalist, Ralph Nader. CAP’s objectives are to protect consumer interests in the market place, to educate the public on the responsible use of resources and to create awareness of the environmental impacts of development. Other Environmental NGOs, nearly all founded in the 1970s and 1980s, are the Environmental Protection Society (EPSM), 1972; Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM), 1977, an offshoot of CAP and the Malaysian branch of

KWells_book_3.fm Page 332 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

81

82 83 84

•

332

Friends of the Earth (FoE); and the World Rainforest Movement (WRM), 1988. The last, coordinated by the Cambridge-educated economist, Martin Khor (Khor Kok Peng), is based in Penang. SAM, in association with CAP, has organized public campaigns for groups and rural communities affected by environmental problems, such as pollution and siltation, and addressed environmental issues through seminars, publications and the English and vernacular press. F. Pearce, Green Warriors: People and the Politics Behind the Environmental Revolution, London: Bodley Head, 1991, pp. 175–178. Whitmore, Tropical Rain Forests of the Far East, p. 268. Third Malaysia Plan, Chapter 9, pp. 218–222, 299. Ibid., pp. 219–220. Ibid., pp. 223–225. Ibid., p. 223. Ibid., p. 13. Ibid., p. 226. G. Durairaj, ‘The vital role of our forests’, Business Times, 10 Sept. 1977. National Forestry Policy, 1978, Kuala Lumpur: Keramat Printing, 1978, Clause 2. Ibid., Clauses 2 & 3. Aiken, et al. Development and Environment in Peninsular Malaysia, pp. 153–156; National Forestry Policy, 1978, Policy Implementation, Section E: Development of Wood-based Industries, Clauses 14–18; F: Bumiputera Participation, Clause 19. National Forestry Policy, 1978, Policy Implementation, Section C: Forest Regeneration and Rehabilitation, Clause 11. National Forestry Policy, Clause 1 (iii). Ibid., Clause 11. Ibid., Clause 4. EPU-WWFM, ‘Malaysian National Conservation Strategy’, vol. III: ‘Critical Areas’, EPU, 1993, p. 91. Arshad Ayub, ‘National agricultural policy and its implications on forest development in the country’, Malayan Forester, 42, iv (1979) pp. 349–352. ‘Protection of Wild Life Act 1972’, Laws of Malaysia, Act 76, Clause 47. Third Malaysia Plan, p. 219. ‘Nature News’, Malayan Naturalist, 3, i and ii (1976) p. 2. ‘National Forestry Act 1984, Laws of Malaysia, Act 313; 1993 (Amendment), Laws of Malaysia Act A864. ‘National Forestry Act 1984’, Part II, Clauses 3 and 4. ‘National Forestry Act 1984’, Part II, 4 (f). F.A. Trindade and H.P. Lee, The Constitution of Malaysia: Further Perspectives and Developments, Singapore: OUP, 1986, pp. 121–122. Shafruddin, The Federal Factor, pp. 341–358; Majid Cooke, The Challenge of Sustainable Forests, pp. 96–108. ‘Permanent Reserved Forests’ cover 11 categories, namely: timber production; soil protection; soil reclamation; flood control; water catchment; sanctuary for wild life; VJR; amenity; education; research; and forests for Federal purposes. Clause 10 (2) allows for classification in more than one category, ‘National Forestry Act 1984’. Taking advantage of this provision, WWFM proposed the designation of the Bukit Bauk Forest Reserve as an Amenity Forest to secure complete protection of virgin stands of valuable kapur and damar minyak. WWFM, ‘Proposals for a Conservation Strategy for Trengganu, A Paper Submitted to the State Government of Trengganu’, Kuala Lumpur, 1983, pp. 38–39. EPU-WWFM, ‘Malaysian National Conservation Strategy’, vol. II: ‘Administration’, p. 226 ‘National Forestry Act 1984’, Clause 10 (3) & (4). Two years after the Belgrade workshop, UNESCO held another environmental education workshop in Tbilisi, Georgia. Building upon the Belgrade Charter, the Tbilisi Report identified various methods of improving environmental stewardship.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 333 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development and Environmentalism

•

333

85 F.B. Golley, ‘Ecodevelopment’, in F.B. Golley (ed.), Ecosystems of the World, 14 A: Tropical Rain Forest Ecosystems: Structure and Function, Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, 1983, p. 335. 86 ‘International nature conservation’, 1 August 1975, Wallaceana, 5. 87 R.F. Dasmann, ‘Towards a biosphere consciousness’, in Worster (ed.), The Ends of the Earth, p. 279. 88 F.B. Golley, ‘Introduction’, p. 4; N. Myers, ‘Conservation of rain forests for scientific research, for wildlife conservation, and for recreation and tourism’, in Golley (ed.), Tropical Rain Forest Ecosystems, p. 328. 89 K. Kartawinata, A.P. Vayda and R. Sambas Wirakusuma, ‘East Kalimantan and the Man and Biosphere Program’, Borneo Research Bulletin, 10 (1978), p. 28; V. King, ‘Environmental change in Malaysian Borneo: Fire, draught and rain’, in M. J. G. Parnwell and R.L. Bryant (eds), Environmental Change in South-East Asia: People, Politics and Sustainable Development, London: Routledge, 1996, pp. 168–172. 90 King, ‘Environmental change in Malaysian Borneo’, pp. 171–172. 91 For an account of the Penan issue, see Hurst, Rainforest Politics, pp. 115–122 and pp. 367– 368 below. 92 Collins et al., Conservation Atlas, p. 141. 93 See IUCN, UNEP, WWF, ‘Preservation of genetic diversity’, World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development, Gland, Switzerland, 1980. 94 Masahiro Ohta, ‘UNEP’s activities on tropical forest in Asia and the Pacific’, p. 27. 95 Kiew Bong Heang, ‘The need for conservation’, Malayan Naturalist, 34, iii (1981) p. 16; Vincent and Rozali, Environment and Development, p. 156. 96 Vincent and Hadi, ‘Malaysia’, p. 8. 97 WWFM, ‘Proposals for a Conservation Strategy for Kedah’, Kuala Lumpur, 1984, pp. 53, 61. 98 EPU-WWFM, ‘Malaysian National Conservation Strategy: Critical Areas, III’, pp. 78–80. 99 W. Brandt (intro.), North-South: A Programme for Survival. Report of the Independent Commission on International Development Issues, London: Pan Books Ltd., 1980, p. 115. 100 In 1975, a report on techniques in EIA for the Third World was published by the Scientific Commission on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) set up by IUCN. Unlike the claims made by Adams for the Third World in general (see Green Development, pp.146, 151), ecologists with sufficient knowledge of the dynamics of the ecosystem were available in Malaysia. However, little formal knowledge of how to conduct EIAs meant that the format was improvised gradually. D.R. Wells, personal communication. 101 Laws of Malaysia, Act 127, ‘Environmental Quality Act, 1974’, Amend./ A.636/85, Clause 13. The amendment made EIAs mandatory for: conversion to other uses of hill forests and mangrove swamps of 50 ha or more; logging involving 500 ha or more; logging or forest conversion involving reservoir catchments, irrigation works, hydroelectric generation and areas adjacent to State and National Parks. MOSTE, ‘Environmental quality (prescribed activities), Environmental Impact Assessment Order, 1987’, pp. 273–274. 102 Aiken et al., Development and Environment, pp. 265–266; Asraf Abdullah, ‘Ensuring effective EIA for logging via guidelines’, NST, 3 Aug. 1998. 103 A study on EIA enforcement revealed that over a two-year period following implementation, out of a total of 216 projects no EIA’s were submitted for any of the 13 involving forests. Leong Yueh Kwong, ‘Environmental impact assessment and land conversion’, in R. Kiew (ed.), The State of Nature Conservation in Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Nature Society/ International Development and Research Centre of Canada, 1991, pp. 228–229. 104 D.R. Wells, (Trustee, WWFM Malaysia, 1977–95 and Member of the State Conservation Strategy Team), personal communication; G.W.H. Davison, ‘State Conservation Strategies, their progress and prospects in Malaysia’, WWFM Report, 1993, pp. 1–2. 105 See pp. 12, 14–15, 44–45, 58–59. 106 Hing Ai Yun, ‘Capitalist development, class and race’, in Syed Husin Ali (ed.) Ethnicity, Class and Development: Malaysia. International Conference on Modernization and NationalCultural Identity, Selected papers, Kuala Lumpur: Persatuan Sains Sosial Malaysia, 1984, p. 312. 107 See Sundaram, A Question of Class, p. 268.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 334 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

334

108 For a penetrating study of State politics, see D. Guyot, ‘The politics of land: Comparative development in two states of Malaysia’, Pacific Affairs, 44, iii (1971) pp. 369–400. 109 R. Kumar, The Forest Resources of Malaysia: Their Economics and Development, Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1986, p. 86; Vincent and Rozali, Environment and Development, p. 128. 110 The Endau-Keluang Wild Life Reserve, established by Sultan Ibrahaim, comprised the Endau River catchment (1933) and the Segamat Wild Life Sanctuary (1937). H. Barlow, ‘The Malayan Nature Society/Star Endau Rompin Expedition’, JMBRAS, 58, ii (1985) p. 135. 111 Third Malaysia Plan, p. 225. 112 Editorial, [The Endau-Rompin National Park campaign’], Malayan Naturalist, 3, iv (1977); See also Third Malaysia Plan, p. 225 note 4. 113 Editorial, Malayan Naturalist, 3, iv (1977) p. 1. 114 C. Betterton, ‘Endau-Rompin: A case for conservation’, in Development and Environmental Crisis: A Malaysian Case, Penang: CAP, 1978, p. 91. 115 NST, 12 May 1977, Quoted in ‘Save the Endau-Rompin National Park’, Malayan Naturalist, 4, ii (1978), p. 2. 116 NST, 22 July 1977, Quoted in ‘Save the Endau-Rompin National Park’, p. 3. 117 Editorial, Malayan Naturalist, 4, ii (1978) p.1. 118 See for example, ‘Endau-Rompin: Pembalakan yang merugikan manusia’, Utusan Malaysia, 16 Aug. 1977; Editorial, ‘Krisis balak’, Utusan Malaysia, 31 Aug. 1977. The research division of the UMNO headquarters is believed to have submitted a report to the government on the Endau-Rompin issue. ‘Pahang to issue more logging licences’, NST, 5 Sept. 1977. 119 F.S.P. Ng, (then Secretary to the MNS), personal communication. Political patronage was crucial within the climate of increasing press control under the 1948 Printing Press Ordinance, revised in 1971 and 1984, and amended in 1988. F. Loh Kok Wah and Mustafa K. Anuar, ‘The press in Malaysia in the early 1990s: Corporatization, technological innovation and the middle class’, in Muhammad Ikmal Said and Zahid Emby (eds), Malaysia, pp. 100–101. 120 F.S.P. Ng, personal communication; Adibah Amin, ‘Logging our taman-to-be: is it need or greed?’, NST, 11 May 1977. 121 NST, 20 Aug. 1977; National Echo, 27 Aug. 1977, republished in ‘Conservation at home’, Malayan Naturalist, 4, i (1977) p. 2. 122 ‘The Endau-Rompin dilemma’, from the Malay press, Star, 17 Nov. 1977. 123 National Echo, 30 Sept. 1977, quoted in ‘Save the Endau-Rompin National Park’, Malayan Naturalist, 4, ii (1978) p. 4. 124 NST, 20 June 1977, quoted in Malayan Naturalist, 4, ii (1978), p. 3. 125 Rudolf Schedenkel, a Swiss zoologist and chairman of the Survival Services Commission (Rhino Group) of the IUCN who visited the threatened park reported that about 10–20 rhinos still survived in the areas across the watershed of the upper Selai, Endau and Rompin Rivers. ‘Expert on Endau-Rompin massacre’, National Echo, 30 August 1977. It is believed that rhino survival was jeopardized by a number of factors, principally, protracted logging; loss of key habitat in the redrawing of the park boundaries by the Johor government; and the campaign advertisement of rhino presence which would have served to alert poachers. D.R. Wells, personal communication. 126 ‘Race against time to save a treasure box teeming with wildlife’, NST, 28 Aug. 1977; ‘Pahang to issue more logging licences’, NST, 5 Sept. 1977. 127 ‘More permits to log park’, NST, 25 Aug. 1977. 128 ‘Crisis at Endau-Rompin’, National Echo, 30 July 1977. 129 ‘New drive to save the park’, Star, 3 Aug. 1977. 130 ‘Dr. Mahathir’s warning on shortage of timber supply’, National Echo, 4 Aug. 1977; NST, 30 Aug. 1977, quoted in Malayan Naturalist, 4, ii (1978), p. 4. 131 Tun Mohamed Suffian Hashim, An Introduction to the Constitution of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Printer, 1976, p. 16; Shafruddin, The Federal Factor, pp. 308–312. 132 National Echo, 30 Sept. 1977, quoted in Malayan Naturalist, 4, ii (1978) p. 4. 133 ‘A move to stop new logging in Pahang’, NST, 17 Nov. 1977. 134 Kiew Bong Heang, ‘Assessment of the Endau-Rompin Expedition, 1985–1986’, Malayan Naturalist’, 40, ii (1986) pp. 5–9; H.Barlow, ‘The Malayan Nature Society/ Star Endau Rompin Expedition’, JMBRAS, 58, ii (1985) pp. 135–142. For a pictorial account of the natural

KWells_book_3.fm Page 335 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Development and Environmentalism

135 136

137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149

150 151 152 153 154

155 156 157 158 159

•

335

wealth of the area, see Endau-Rompin: A Malaysian Heritage, Kuala Lumpur: Malayan Nature Society, 1988. ‘Two states forestall park project’, Malayan Naturalist, 41, i (1987) p. 9. ‘Endau-Rompin to be State Park next year’, Star, 17 July 1987, quoted in Malayan Naturalist, 41, i (1987) p. 11; Collins et. al. (eds), Conservation Atlas, p. 190. In 1990, Pahang took advantage of Section 62 of the 1986 Land Code that allowed States to set aside Protected Areas and gazetted 40,197 ha of the Endau-Rompin as a Wildlife Reserve. In 2000, it declared a further 3, 397 ha as Forest Reserve. In 1993, after a long delay, Johor finally gazetted 48,905 ha (covering the Endau-Keluang Wildlife Reserve) as a State Park. S. Elagupillay, ‘Gazettement of protected areas’, Journal of Wildlife and Parks, 16 (1998) p. 16; Johor Park Enactment 5 of 1992. Johor has provided for the administration of the park by the National Parks (Johor) Corporation. Editorial, ‘The real issue’, NST, 29 Aug, 1977. Shafruddin, The Federal Factor, pp. 307–337. Shafruddin, The Federal Factor, pp. 330–331. Mohd Abdullah, ‘Maka runtuhlah satu lagi keagungan kita’, Utusan Malaysia, 24 Oct. 1977; ‘Hutan kita hapus menjelang 1990’, Utusan Malaysia, 25 Oct. 1977. Sundaland: All land sitting on the Sunda continental shelf of Southeast Asia. D.R.Wells, personal communication. ‘The scientific value of National Parks, with particular emphasis on Taman Negara’, The School of Biological Sciences, University of Malaya, to the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Land and Mines, 22 May 1970. Robert Rudd, Professor of Zoology, University of California, Davis, to the Minister of Land and Mines, 11 June 1970, n.p. Ho Thian Hua, E. Soepadmo and T.C. Whitmore (eds), National Parks of Malaysia, MNJ, 24, iii and iv (1971); ‘King George the V National Park Enactment No. 2 of 1939’, Federated Malay States Enactments, 1939, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1940, clause 3 (i) p. 2. Hurst, Rainforest Politics, pp. 72–73. ‘Conservation News’, Malayan Naturalist, 3, iii (1976) p. 12. K. Rubeli, ‘The Tembeling hydro-electric project from the Taman Negara viewpoint, MNJ, 29, iv (1976) pp. 307–314; DWNP, ‘The Tembeling hydro-electricity project: An analysis of the environmental and sociological consequences of implementation, with particular reference to Taman Negara’, Report prepared for MOSTE, Feb. 1977, pp. 3, 5–6. DWNP, ‘The Tembeling hydro-electricity project’, passim. National Echo, 10 August 1977. ‘Second look at projects’, NST, 11 May 1982, quoted in Malayan Naturalist, 36; i (1982) p. 2 The EPSM, formed in 1974, is a small organization of informed citizens, concerned with all aspects of environmental issues and problems, including those affecting urban areas. It publishes a quarterly magazine, Alam Sekitar [‘The Environment’]. Both the New Sunday Times and the Sunday Star carried articles on the issue, with an open letter from SAM. K.S. Gurmit Singh, ‘The saving of Taman Negara’, in Wan Sabri Wan Mansor et al. (eds), Outdoor recreation in Malaysia, Proceedings of a seminar, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia, 26–28 Sep. 1983, Serdang: Universiti Pertanian Malaysia, 1983, pp. 333– 334. ‘Conservation in the country’, Malayan Naturalist, 36, iii (1983) p. 3. Hurst, Rainforest Politics, pp. 72–74. Statement by Kamariah Mat Nor, representative for Tembeling, Proceedings of the State Legislative Assembly, Pahang, 10 Dec. 1984. WWFM, ‘Environmental impact assessment of the proposed tourism project in Taman Negara’, A Report for the Government of Malaysia, No. 30, Aug. 1986, p. 6. Kalai Selvan, ‘What’s the use of a road to Gunung Tahan?’ Star, 29 Jan. 1986; S.M. Mohd Idris, SAM, ‘Road project may deter tourists’, Star, 24 Feb. 1986; MNS Members (58), ‘Can development be considered elsewhere?’ Star, 11 Feb. 1986; ‘A Memorandum to the Minister of Science and Technology and Environment concerning the proposed road to Gunung Tahan in Taman Negara’, 28 April 1986, in Malayan Naturalist, 40, i (1986) pp. 3–9.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 336 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

336

160 WWFM, ‘Environmental Impact Assessment of the Proposed Tourism Project in Taman Negara’, p. 77. 161 K.S. Gurmit Singh, ‘Tembeling: Winners and losers’, Malayan Naturalist, 36, ii (1982) p. 37. 162 Actual construction was by a consortium of companies, including Lembaga Letrik Negara (LLN), financed by the Malaysian government, with a low interest loan from the government of Japan. The dam became fully operational in mid-1987. 163 A study conducted by a team from the University of Malaya concluded that the Kenyir Dam’s adverse ecological impact was ‘not altogether balanced by the benefits’. J.I. Furtado, E. Soepadmo, A. Sasekumar, R.P. Lim, Ong Siew-Lin, G. Davison and Liew Kim Seng, ‘Ecological effects of the Trengganu hydro-electric project’, University of Malaya, Dec. 1977, Wallaceana, Supplement 1, 1977; ‘Conservation in the Country’, Malayan Naturalist, 36, iii (1983) p.3. 164 J. Tang, ‘Impacts of dams on biodiversity/ecosystems’, Fact Sheet on Kenyir Dam, WWFM 2000. 165 In an operation that began in Feb. 1984, the Wildlife Department is reported to have rescued 10 elephants (3 of which perished ), as well as hundreds of monkeys and a tapir. Anon., ‘The Case Study: Socio-economic and environmental aspects on Kenyir Dam in the State of Terengganu, Peninsular Malaysia’, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London, n.d., pp. 1–2. 166 I. Sharp, ‘A world first for Malaysia’, NST, 11 March 1984; ‘Its done! Operation jumbo is a huge success,’ Malayan Naturalist, 38, i (1984) p. 13. 167 Bureau of Research and Consultancy, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, ‘Environmental PostProject Evaluation, Terengganu Hydro-Electric Project, Kenyir Dam’, Submitted to the Overseas Economic Co-operation Fund Japan, 1990, pp. 24–28. 168 Tang, ‘Impacts of dams on biodiversity/ecosystems’. 169 ‘The case study: Socio-economic and environmental aspects on Kenyir Dam in the State of Terengganu, Peninsular Malaysia’. IIED, n.p. 170 Kiew Bong Heang, ‘Conservation in Malaysia: Some observations on the environmental impact of Kenyir Dam’, Malayan Naturalist 43, iv (1990) pp. 11–13. 171 ‘The Future of Bunga Buah: Great plans for Genting’, Press statement by Malayan Nature Society, Dec. 1981, in Malayan Naturalist, 35, iii (1982) pp. 28–29; ‘Genting must heed the people’, Malay Mail, 13 Dec. 1981; ‘Officials’ protest went unheeded and all was lost: The story behind the highlands sale’, Sunday Mail, 13 Dec. 1981, quoted in Malayan Naturalist, 35, iii (1982) pp. 282–289. 172 ‘Selangor Branch Newsletter’, Feb. 1982, Malayan Naturalist, 35, iii (1982) p. 32. 173 A. Indrani, ‘Alarm sounded over Malaysia’s rapid soil erosion’, Malayan Naturalist, 38, ii (1984) pp. 2–4. 174 Hashim Saad, ‘An overview of environmental and socio-economic aspects of tropical deforestation in Malaysia’. Paper presented to the Expert Group Meeting: ‘Environmental and Socio-Economic Aspects of Tropical Deforestation’, 28 Jan. 3 Feb. 1986, Bangkok, n.p. 175 Sundaram, A Question of Class, Appendix 3, p. 324.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 337 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

CHAPTER ELEVEN

Integrating Biodiversity with Development: Myth or Reality? The worst thing that can happen – will happen – is not energy depletion, economic collapse, limited nuclear war, or conquest by a totalitarian government. As terrible as these catastrophes will be for us, they can be repaired within a few generations. The one process ongoing in the 1980s that will take millions of years to correct is a loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats. This is the folly our descendants are least likely to forgive us. – E.O. Wilson1

y the last quarter of the twentieth century biodiversity was the central ideology in tropical forest conservation. It inspired the concept of integrated development as a viable option. In Peninsular Malaysia, where conversion of forest land to agriculture was an on-going process and where the timber industry was a major revenue earner, biodiversity protection posed a serious challenge. The gazetting of more forests as parks, reserves and other protected areas and their proper management was one obvious goal. The other was improved biodiversity maintenance in Production Forests as an important back-up for TPAs. The concept of ‘minimum intervention’ to arrest species and genetic erosion and its long-term economic consequences revolutionized the conventional approach to silvicultural practices.2 These conservation initiatives were pitted against continuing forest degradation and depletion, fuelled by the exponential growth of downstream industries.

B

MUL T I - PU R P O S E PAR KS A N D RES E R VE S

An exception to the apparent contradiction between rapid economic growth and environmental protection is well-managed eco-tourism. The potential value of parks and reserves as tourist attractions, already recognized in pre-war Malaya (see pp. 214–215) gained increased importance in post-war development. Created in 1959 within the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, the Department of Tourism was upgraded in 1965 to a separate ‘Division’ under a Director. Tourist numbers rose from 600,000 in 1971 to 2.73 million in 1983 and, by 1994, some 7.9 million visitors to the Peninsula generated a total revenue of M$8.2 million. 3

KWells_book_3.fm Page 338 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

338

The recreational potential of natural landscapes, emphasized by the Third Malaysia Plan,4 was factored into the equation for multi-purpose land use, which conservation agencies associated with reserves and parks. The MNS Blue Print, for example, stressed: The conservation of scenic areas, together with their wild life, helps to provide an increasingly social amenity for our own citizens, and it is good economics when the growing potential of the tourist industry is taken into account. 5

The Bali Action Plan (BAP), formulated by the 1982 Third World Congress on National Parks, focused on how best to integrate the material needs of people with the maintenance of genetic diversity in wildlife management. It concluded at the same meeting that: [A] protected area which is designed and managed without consideration of its potential for use as a centre for human education, employment, research, and enjoyment may be underutilized; operating a protected area in such a way sows the seeds of potential future disaster.6

The concept of multi-purpose protected areas that inspired the Bali Action Plan was not new to the Peninsula. In 1973, W.E. Stevens had mooted the idea of similar reserves, more open to social use than Taman Negara (see p. 291). Anticipating forest loss by the proposed Temengor Dam, he proposed placing under the Forest and Wildlife Departments some 207,200 ha of unreserved forest in the Belum area, in the headwaters of the Perak River. It was argued that the combined attraction of the primary forest and the lake would render the recreational potential of the area unique to Malaya. While finer hotels and nightclubs may be had elsewhere, he observed, very few places in the world could match the unspoiled beauty of the Malaysian forests.7 The same argument underscored MNS opposition to the proposed dam on the Tembeling (see pp. 325–326).8 To dispel the official view that environmentalists stood solely for nature preservation, the Society added a note of reassurance: We do not argue for the setting up of national parks for mere preservation. No, conservation consists not of preservation alone but sensible utilization and management.9

Similar views were shared regionally. At the Opening Address of the National Parks Congress in Bali, Adam Malik, the Vice-President of the Republic of Indonesia and a committed environmentalist, declared: In the past, a prime motive was a desire to preserve natural beauty, the desire to leave nature undisturbed in its pristine beauty. This motive still exists today but there are additional and perhaps more important reasons for establishing national parks, namely the realization of their intrinsic value and potential to sustain the development processes which Third World countries have begun, and a sense of responsibility towards our future and our natural heritage.10

KWells_book_3.fm Page 339 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Integrating Biodiversity with Development: Myth or Reality?

•

339

As eco-tourism was allied to increasing awareness of the public about its rights of access to natural heritage, there was no apparent concern at this stage over the negative effects of tourism. All the same, to ease potential tension between tourism and conservation, Malaysian environmentalists prescribed balancing free access to nature reserves with regulated access to wildlife sanctuaries. 11 Referring to the extra-economic value of parks and reserves, the pioneer ecologist, Frank Darling, argued that these reservoirs of living things were part and parcel of the world’s respiratory system and provide ‘psychological repose’.12 The Malaysian Medical Association claimed that with economic growth, Malaysians felt ‘poised to join the group of developed nations’ and aspired towards living fuller lives with more opportunities for outdoor activity.13 In response to this growing need, particularly among the expanding urban populace, the Federal Forestry Department incorporated within its agenda the development of forest recreational areas which Kedah, Selangor, Terengganu and Negeri Sembilan subsequently provided. Realized also was the importance of preserving wildlife as an integral part of forest management. 14 Contrary to the perception of policy-makers (see below), the Director-General of DWNP, Mohamed Khan, claimed that wildlife management in Taman Negara was ‘not for direct economic purposes, but primarily for recreational, aesthetic and scientific purposes, with some economic benefits as by-products’.15 Increased tourist numbers to Taman Negara attested to the dollar value of well-preserved forests, rich in wildlife. Sighting of deer, wild pigs, elephants and tigers feeding at salt licks enhanced the excitement of jungle hikes.16 Supporting 22 endemic tree species17 and virtually all the mammal and bird species known in the Peninsula,18 the area was of special interest to visiting scientists. BI O DIVERSIT Y IN TENSION W ITH DE VE LOPMENT

The socio-economic importance of parks, recreation and tourism demonstrate the inextricable link between biodiversity protection and development. Rapid advances in ecology exposed the multiple values particularly of the lowland climax forests of the Peninsula. Though there is no distinct vegetational change at the 300 m boundary, there is a shift in the floristic composition of the dominants in the main and emergent canopies. Moreover, while some lowland species occur in the hill dipterocarp forests, many more of those present lower down fail to reach that altitude.19 In terms of mammals, it has been estimated that 82 percent of species live below 660 m and 52 per cent below 300 m. 20 For birds, greater sensitivity to altitude has been observed. Species diversity has been estimated to be highest below the steepland boundary, defined as at an average 150 m.21 The high heterogeneity in species-rich lowland forest is due to the occurrence of ‘rare’ species.22 The fact that most species are present at very low population densities makes for an extinction-prone environment. Thus, contrary to the popular view of a robust tropical rain forest, scientists point to the fragility of its climax community.23 Any reduction of forest implies the elimination of an indeterminable number of species.24

KWells_book_3.fm Page 340 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

340

Associated with species protection is the re-evaluation of the status of NTFP. Forest botanists have argued that tropical rain forests are better adapted to the sustainable harvesting of NTFP than they are to timber logging. Unlike logging in the species-poor, relatively simply structured temperate forests, extraction in the species-rich tropics, where commercial woods are dispersed, is damaging to canopy and soil. As M. Jacobs pointed out: A finely tuned, slow-moving ecosystem, a factory capable of turning out hundreds of exquisite and often irreplaceable products with utmost economy of inorganic matter, is ripped open by bulldozers and chainsaws to pull out the very pillars supporting its roof. In a notoriously wasteful process, quantities of scarce minerals that the ecosystem might be able to convert into … precious articles, get lost. A mere fraction of the economic species is used for timber … .25

Growing appreciation of the potential medical, biochemical and pharmaceutical properties of plants lends value to Peninsular flora, as indeed to that of the whole Malesian region, as a genetic reservoir. The Peninsula boasts a staggering number of plant species,26 a large proportion of which has yet to be properly studied and documented.27 At least 70 per cent of some 3,000 plants with anti-cancer properties, for example, are believed to exist in the tropics.28 Plants have served other uses in manufacturing in the form of exudates, including latex, pectin, resins, gums and wax, as well as vegetable dyes, tannins, pesticides and fibres. 29 Lignin, for example, is used in oil-well drilling and ceramic production. Biotechnology, on the frontiers of current scientific exploration, is dedicated in part to substituting natural with artificial substances for producing pharmaceuticals. 30 But there remain a great many natural substances that cannot artificially be replicated, except at great cost. The importance of NFTP, generally overlooked in development projects, has in recent years gained renewed attention as a result of spectacular advances in genetics and biochemistry. About half the world’s medical compounds are derived from plants and 75–90 per cent of the world’s rural poor rely on traditional medicine for their primary health care.31 In Malaysia, despite access to modern medicine, herbal medicinal practices have persisted. The astringent Cibotium barometz (penawar jambi or bulu pusi), traditionally exported to China, now commands an international market.32 Both imports and exports of medical plants have significantly increased.33 The value of imports is estimated to have risen from just M$93.4 million in 1993 to M$264.7 million in 1996, outstripping exports totalling M$4.2 million and M$55.9 million for the respective years.34 It demonstrates the huge potential for reversing the trade flow by improved utilization of indigenous plant resources. Of approximately 1,300 plants reputedly used in Malay medicine, some 174 are widely utilized and many are yet to be evaluated.35 Among the more important examples in Peninsular Malaysia is the popular medical root, tongkat

KWells_book_3.fm Page 341 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Integrating Biodiversity with Development: Myth or Reality?

•

341

21. Medicinal herbs i. Cibotium barometz (penawar jambi: bulu pusi). Painting by B. Everard (G. Smith) ii. Eurycoma longifolia (tongkat ali) (WIAP)

ali (Eurycoma longifolia). Used as a febrifuge and aphrodisiac, it is considered to have potential as an anti-malarial drug.36 In Sarawak, the foliage of one species of bintangur (Calophyllum lanigerum) has been discovered to contain components active against the HIV virus.37 A 1985 WHO-IUCN-WWF consultation on the conservation of herbal resources culminated in the Chiang Mai Declaration, drawing attention to the loss of medical plants through bad harvesting practices. The 1993 Guidelines of the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) on the Conservation of Biological Diversity in Tropical Production Forests stressed that silvicultural systems change species composition and remove certain structural and floristic features of the forest. Its recommendation for improved harvesting practices, particularly with reference to stands and sites of biological importance, 38 was integrated into the Malaysian-German Forest Management and Conservation Programme (see p. 399). To systematically explore and sustain the pharmaceutical use of plants, the National Committee on Medical Plants was set up in 1995 by an Act of Parliament, with research coordinated at FRIM (see below). Often forgotten is the critical importance of the preservation of wild species of food-related plants for the breeding of improved varieties, with higher pest and disease resistance.39 Cloned and hybridized varieties of durian (Durio spp.)

KWells_book_3.fm Page 342 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

342

bred by the Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI) have raised the income of rural communities and stimulated competitive plantation ventures among Orang Asli.40 Fauna, too, has a distinctive role within the ecosystem by way of seed dispersal, pest control and energy and nutrient recycling. It is estimated that in the Peninsula over 90 per cent of terrestrial species occur in natural forests. Animals such as bees and snakes are valuable sources of drugs, and primates play a major role in medical experimentation. Wild meat has been a major protein resource for rural and forest-dwelling communities, and browsers such as deer can potentially be ranched. In the field of agriculture, the growing resistance of plant-eating insects to insecticides has dictated a reappraisal of the role of predators and parasites, among them birds, snakes and insects, for crop protection.41 In the Peninsula, owls have been successfully used to control rat populations in oil palm estates and paddy fields.42 Time and again, agriculturists have returned to the wild to find a fungal- or nematode-resistant strain to breed back into crops.43 The conversion of about 19.3 per cent of forest during the period 1970–92 to monocultivation, mainly oil palm and rubber represented the loss or displacement of biological species.44 Much of the remaining forest has been modified by human intrusion. In the case of individual trees, silvicultural treatment erodes biodiversity by, for example, the removal of old wood which harbours epiphytes and a large arboreal fauna.45 Furthermore, forest re-logging adversely affects species diversity by progressively increasing the number of some species and reducing the number of others. Especially vulnerable are birds and mammals dependent on primary forest. The process of plant succession is set back each time the vegetation is disturbed by a logging event, rendering the forest progressively less diverse and disturbing its internal microclimate, which supports biota of the understorey.46 Noted is the reduction in understorey birds, intolerant of changes in microclimate, as well as of fruit-eating canopy birds, namely, hornbills, barbets and pigeons.47 It has also been observed that about 48 per cent of mammals moved out of logged forest, rendering such areas unsuitable for national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. As P.F. Burgess has argued, ‘[T]he preservation of all species of plants and animals in an undisturbed habitat is a trust which Malaysia holds on behalf of scientists throughout the world.’48 Increasingly, such samples of undisturbed lowland forest, rich in native species and important for scientific study, are difficult to locate. 49 Commercial logging, however well done, interferes with wildlife populations. Logging and the construction of logging tracks inevitably pave the way for the dislocation, decline, and exposure to poaching and hunting.50 Apropos the general decline in animal populations, F.S.P. Ng made the telltale observation: One often sees nowadays, in the Peninsula, large crops of berries, drupes and tempting arillate seeds untouched on trees and eventually on the ground. Where are the animals that must surely have evolved to feed on them?51

KWells_book_3.fm Page 343 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Integrating Biodiversity with Development: Myth or Reality?

•

343

Studies of the impact of selective logging on arboreal primates in the Peninsula have revealed reduction of langur population density by about one half, compared to the gradual decline, over a 5–10 year period, in gibbon density. The difference is deemed to be due to the greater dependence of langurs on the more commonly felled trees for their leaf food and increased hunting, facilitated by extraction roads for logging. After 20 years of regeneration following a single logging operation, all primate species were found to be present, but less abundantly than in mature forests.52 In the case of macaques, which thrive on a less selective diet, regenerated logged forests attract populations from adjacent forests,53 but become vulnerable to hunters following old logging trails. The effects of logging on big mammals, especially rhinos and elephants, are more difficult to determine. There was a dramatic increase in the number of sightings of rhinos and, especially, elephants during the peak period of logging and land clearance in the 1970s. There is no proven connection between stricter enforcement of game laws following the 1976 Wildlife (Amendment) Act and increased sightings of mammals. However, it is likely that forest fragmentation and the loss of feeding sites by logging and forest clearance escalated the raids of displaced animals on plantations.54 Thus, for example, the larger number of 796 elephants recorded in 1985, compared with 486 in 1968, suggests increased sightings of endangered, rather than thriving herds under the elephant protection scheme. 55 On the whole, logged forests, lacking in diversity, are likely to be less congenial to invertebrates as many folivorous insects are specialists. 56 In land conversion for agriculture nearly all the fauna is displaced and most is at risk. The price is species-loss, particularly of large vertebrates living solitarily and requiring big areas for maintaining viable populations.57 Compared with total forest clearance, timber harvesting has a lesser impact on wildlife. It is generally believed that under the right conditions most mammal and bird populations can recover their numbers in the long term. The basic prerequisites are light selective logging, availability of undisturbed forest patches to serve as refuges for re-colonization and, above all, sufficient regeneration before re-logging to allow time for the recovery of animal populations.58 For the most part, these conditions are difficult to guarantee, particularly where hunters and foragers, following the trail of logging roads, jeopardize forest recovery. 59 Protecting the Peninsula’s biodiversity requires appropriate measures for species preservation. The 1972 Protection of Wild Life Act prohibited the hunting and trapping of protected species and provided for improved policing but suffered a shortfall in enforcement. While poaching of totally protected animals was not unknown, the protection of wild pig (Sus scrofa) to curb the massive undercover trade in meat seriously backfired, causing by the 1980s a proliferation in their numbers and an upsurge of pig menace to FELDA schemes and independent farms.60 Malaysia accepted the 1977 CITES convention but trade in wildlife continued. Logging activities more than any other factor, contributed to the spectacular

KWells_book_3.fm Page 344 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

344

rise in commercial hunting and trapping for the wildlife trade. With macaques, the boost in numbers as secondary forests extended made them vulnerable to hunting and trapping by farmers and plantation workers. Their large numbers, combined with their tolerance of capture and transport rendered them ideal for export, mainly to the USA, UK, Japan and Taiwan. During 1974–77, an estimated 1,000 macaques were exported annually under the Wildlife Act of 1972, with the USA as a lead importer for the biomedical industry. The expansion of the wildlife trade climaxed during 1975–79,61 at the height of forest clearance. Reflecting the escalation in the trade was the rapid growth during the same period of the export company, Nam Chin Ltd., its volume of business second only to that of the established Research Primates Malaysia. By 1978, when the number of macaques sold rose spectacularly to 14,000, the DWNP stepped in to place a two-year moratorium on exports, extended into the 1980s under the 1979 Wild Life Protection (Import and Export Licence) Order. Only outstanding permits were honoured, reducing exports dramatically. 62 The National Parks Act, finally passed in 1980,63 aimed fundamentally at securing protection of selected areas of biological interest, with potential multipurpose functions, including the protection of wildlife. Weighted in favour of central control, the Act provided for a National Parks Advisory Council (NPAC) to be chaired by an appointee of the Minister of Environment and to include a number of Federal Ex Officio Members.64 The reluctance of individual States to share power with the Federal authority over forest management was critical in the light of the National Forestry Policy and led, in 1983, to a conciliatory Amendment of the National Parks Act.65 Abandoning the original objective of achieving a desirable balance for guaranteeing co-management between State and Federal governments, the Amendment left the fate of national parks created under the new Act entirely in the hands of the States. 66 ‘The pendulum of power … swung from almost total Federal control to almost total State control,’ commented WWFM. The Amendment left no guarantee for the future of any newly constituted national park. The Federal authority cannot veto inappropriate development plans, and parks created under this Act run the risk of de-gazettement at the whim of the State.67 In this sense, far from being inviolate and independent, national parks created under the new Act have less standing than alienated land.68 A further flaw in the Act has been the lack of scientific representation on the National Parks Advisory Council to provide guidance for integrating the social and scientific functions of parks. The Thatcher economic philosophy of allround wealth generation adopted by Malaysia under Prime Minister Mahathir was reflected in the composition of the Council. It betrayed the government’s perception of national parks more as revenue earners than areas of biological conservation.69 While the National Parks Act has since become essentially a dead letter, with not a single addition to Taman Negara, some States have taken the option of

KWells_book_3.fm Page 345 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Integrating Biodiversity with Development: Myth or Reality?

•

345

creating State Parks.70 The MNS, which helped both Pahang and Johor with management plans for the Endau-Rompin Parks, recommended that all adjacent forest reserves be maintained as buffer zones. These safeguards have repeatedly been contravened by illegal encroachments, logging and agricultural clearance, particularly on the southern end.71 Caught in the crossfire between the State and Federal governments over the National Parks Act, the Wildlife Department failed to develop its own National Parks policy. Staff shortage and lack of expertise have been considered fundamental reasons for the department’s passive role and failure to take advantage of even its limited powers under the National Parks Act to propose appropriate areas for national park reservation.72 MALAYSIA AND THE TROPICAL FOREST AC TION PLAN

On the global front, the International Tropical Forest Action Plan of 1983 was a logical outcome of the 1980 World Conservation Strategy. It arose specifically from FAO’s concern over the little funding set aside for tropical forestry programmes compared with aid for agriculture.73 The project was jointly formulated by the World Resources Institute (WRI), the World Bank, FAO, IUCN and UNDP and was formally adopted at the 9th World Forestry Congress at Mexico City in 1985. It was endorsed in 1987 at a meeting of 27 world leaders at the Rockefeller Conference Centre in Bellagio, Italy, the sequel to the 1986 ‘Silva’ meeting convened in Paris by President Mitterrand.74 The TFAP, based on the belief that poverty and related fuel shortage was the root cause of deforestation, aimed at reversing the trend by promoting tropical forest protection. 75 A solution was sought through a broad spectrum of related areas of forest management. These included land use planning; forest-based industrial development; improved professional, technical and vocational training; integration of genetic conservation with biosphere protection; and research in sustainable production. 76 Action for tropical forest protection was assisted by the increased sensitivity of the World Bank and other aid agencies to criticism from NGOs, principally the Rainforest Action Group, and US Congressional initiatives for investigating their performance in environmental terms. In 1987 the World Bank created an Environmental Department in Washington DC 77 and, in association with UNDP and UNEP, embarked on a programme of ‘biospheric infrastructure development’ known as ‘The Global Environmental Facility’. The aim was to help preserve biological diversity and ecological processes within natural environments of the tropics.78 The World Bank also pledged to work more closely with environmental pressure groups, emphasizing that development should be kept in balance with rain forest conservation.79 Arguably, from ASEAN’s standpoint, no single change in the World Bank’s activity was more significant than its increased emphasis on forestry projects.80 International commitment for tropical forest conservation was enshrined in the 1987 Brundtland Report, prepared by the World Commission on En-

KWells_book_3.fm Page 346 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

346

vironment and Development (WCED), linking environmental degradation to poverty.81 Poor people are forced to overuse environmental resources to survive from day to day, and their impoverishment of their environment further impoverishes them, making their survival ever more difficult and uncertain.82

Though the prospect of shortfalls in fuel posed less of a problem for Malaysia than many other developing countries, TFAP’s emphasis on sustainable wood production was favourable to the nation’s export industry.83 Malaysia readily adopted the TFAP programme of sustainable wood production, underpinned by the NFA. The Act provided for a Forest Development Fund to be established by the respective State authorities. Supported by the ‘forest development cess’ on forest products (see p. 278), the Fund was to finance forest management plans, reforestation and amenity forest programmes.84 To meet the extended scope both of research and forest management, the Malaysian Forest Research and Development Act was promulgated in 1985. It resulted in the separation of the Federal Forest Department (designated under the NFA as the ‘Forestry Department’) from its research arm, FRI, now established as a statutory body, the Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM). Consistent with the aim of boosting downstream industry, the Fourth Malaysia Plan (1981–85) proposed an intensified programme for rehabilitating loggedover areas and enrichment as well as industrial planting.85 A National Task Force Committee to formulate a TFAP for Malaysia acted in consultation with national and international environmental NGOs and prepared an action plan that was approved in 1989.86 In compliance with TFAP’s cardinal principle of rationalized land use, the Plan recommended the restriction of agricultural development to State Land Forests, reserving PRFs strictly for production. Excisions within PRFs, where unavoidable, were to be compensated with the gazetting of equivalent areas of State Land. However, Malaysia’s focus on sustaining wood production rather than protecting its natural forests compromised TFAP’ s original aims. A fundamental feature of Malaysia’s TFAP was improved silvicultural management in PRFs and the conversion of waste and idle land to plantation forests. 87 Of more than 3.5 million ha logged during the 1970s barely 2 per cent had been silviculturally treated. Thus, to make up for depleted stands, a Compensatory Plantation Programme was launched in 1982, at an estimated cost of US$204 million. Acacia mangium was an increasing favourite for the wood-pulp industry. Plans were made to plant a total of 188,200 ha over a fifteen-year period, beginning with an annual target of 5,300 ha during the Fourth Malaysia Plan. The scheme soon fell way behind the annual quota for replanting and financial constrains were only partially relieved by international development funding.88 Malaysia’s forestry programme gave reason for IUCN’s general anxiety over TFAP-inspired programmes taking a ‘high finance, high-tech approach’ and

KWells_book_3.fm Page 347 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Integrating Biodiversity with Development: Myth or Reality?

•

347

laying insufficient emphasis on the conservation role of forest services. 89 More money was spent on plantations than arresting the loss of natural forests.90 An unequivocal statement of the increasing importance of industrial wood was Malaysia’s classification of its tree plantations as ‘green cover’. In 1993, some 4.62 million ha of agricultural plantations, mainly rubber, oil palm, cocoa and coconut, were classified by the Forestry Department as ‘similar to reafforested land’ and important as a wood source.91 This downplayed the loss of natural forest and raised the total green cover in 1996 from 57.55 per cent natural forest to 75 per cent for Malaysia as a whole.92 IN THE GR IP OF GREEN GOLD

Peninsular revenue from timber exports, a mere M$55.28 million in 1960, rose to M$1.5 billion in 1979 and reached an all-time high of M$2.9 billion in 1989.93 Log production increased sharply from 7 million cu m in 1971 to 9.5 million cu m in 1978 (see Appendix 2), with the three east coast States of Pahang, Kelantan and Terengganu contributing 65 per cent of the output.94 With revenues so heavily dependent on timber, it is little wonder that States, despite accepting the 1984 National Forestry Act, were not keen on its implementation. Though by Clause (1) (b) of Article 76 of the Federal Constitution Parliament can legislate for the States for the purpose of promoting uniformity of laws, the States can countermand such action – like the NFA legislation – by outright rejection, amendment or repeal.95 Acceptance and enforcement of the Forestry Act depended on the individual will of States. As under the NFA any unclassified forest is categorized as ‘Production Forest’,96 State governments freely used the loophole to guard their revenue interests.97 Timber extraction, coupled with agricultural clearance, reduced forest cover substantially from 63 per cent of the total land area, or 8.3 million ha during 1970–72, to about 47 per cent or over 6 million ha by 1985. 98 This represented a significant loss in primary forest. At the end of 1980, only 21.7 per cent or 2.8 million ha were primary forest, of which just 2.3 million ha were lowland forest (below 780m).99 By 1985, the total primary forest is estimated to have dropped dramatically to 13.7 per cent, or about 1.8 million ha,100 out of which under 550,000 ha was dedicated to parks and wildlife reserves.101 Apart from the latter, there remained only scattered fragments of lowland dipterocarp forests below 300 m, richest in biodiversity terms.102 Biodiversity loss was matched by loss in terms of productivity per ha once logging extended into the ‘upper dipterocarp forest’ to about 1,000 m, with fewer species of Dipterocarpaceae, smaller in girth.103 Log production, which peaked at 366,000 ha per annum during the Second Malaysia Plan, declined during the subsequent phases of the Third and Fourth Malaysia Plans (1976–85) and averaged 152,100 ha per annum during the Fifth Malaysia Plan (1986–90). The re-logging of some areas meant that the actual primary forest harvested between 1971 and 1990 constituted less than the total area of 5.3 million ha logged. 104

KWells_book_3.fm Page 348 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

348

Any gains made for environmental protection by the decrease in clear felling were largely lost to the demands of highway and dam construction. With first-time logging completed in the lowlands and foothills, extraction activities moved into the hills, facilitated by new technology for the cutting and transportation of logs. The equipment adopted for cost-effective methods of extraction on steep slopes incurred extensive damage, particularly when not used systematically and responsibly. In addition, the construction of main access roads interconnecting the web of skid roads for operating tractors inflicted extensive damage to trees. Socio-political pressures and shortage of trained staff jeopardized planned harvesting and efficient supervision of logging operations.105 The lack of scientific planning and supervision is believed to have caused unnecessary waste, involving the destruction of some 50–70 trees (above 25 cm diameter) in the process of removing 6–12 trees per ha. 106 Additional postharvest losses were entailed from potential fungal infection of damaged trees, water stress and the higher incidence of wind-throw in logged forest. 107 Logging and associated erosion implied a setback in vegetational recovery and forest regeneration.108 At just over 10 per cent per annum of the rate of exploitation during the 1970s, reforestation by silvicultural treatment never caught up with the pace of logging.109 Even as dark clouds hung over the fate of the Peninsula’s forests, economists and planners found support in FAO’s precept that wood products constitute ‘one of the few spectacular growing points in trade from developing countries’. 110 Peninsular Malaysia, described as the ‘earliest and most ambitious’ in promoting domestic processing of tropical logs, adopted export quotas and other mechanisms.111 To expand the domestic timber industry, the government began a programme of reducing log exports. In 1972, a ban was imposed on the export of ten species and, the log export quota introduced in 1976 was steadily reduced leading to a total moratorium in 1985. The ban did not cover East Malaysia, which supplemented Peninsular logs for the wood processing industry. Government initiative for developing integrated timber complexes included downstream industries for sawing and processing and the production of veneer, plywood, moulding and furniture. As log exports declined between 1971 and 1981, the export of sawn timber and wood products increased by almost fourfold. In 1972, a total of just under 100,000 cu m of sawn timber valued at M$221 million was exported, representing increases of 34 per cent in volume and 51 per cent in value over the previous year.112 To keep pace with expanding exports, the number of sawmills rose from 487 in 1972 to 520 two years later, and to 556 by the end of the decade. 113 This suggested that log production, which peaked in 1980, sustained the upturn in wood processing.114 More than 50 per cent of the processed wood products found external markets.115 Correspondingly, as a result of the restrictions on log exports and the burgeoning downstream industries log exports suffered a downturn and, by 1981, reached an all-time low.116

KWells_book_3.fm Page 349 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Integrating Biodiversity with Development: Myth or Reality?

•

349

By 1984, only 2.4 per cent of the Peninsula’s timber exports was in log form, as compared with 79 and 98 per cent exported respectively by Sabah and Sarawak. 117 The export of sawn timber, mainly to EEC countries, Japan, Australia and the USA, reached an all-time high at 2.98 million cu m in 1979 but declined thereafter.118 In addition to worldwide recession, decline in Malaysian exports of sawn timber in the early 1980s was attributed largely to inter-ASEAN competition and late entry into the market. Malaysia appreciated the need for ASEAN member nations to regulate production and export through coordinated policies, and the 1983 proposal by the Philippines for a common and standardized price mechanism made good sense.119 The failure by ASEAN to pursue such a solution meant the continued lack of environmentally-costed returns from tropical timber to encourage the reduction in output prescribed by conservation lobbyists. 120 The issue of a price mechanism to ensure fair returns from tropical timber was vitally important to Malaysia. With record yields from Sabah and Sarawak, Malaysia was by 1980 the world’s largest producer and exporter of tropical hardwood, but at the cost of fast declining stocks. A joint FAO–ESCAP (Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific Region) mission reported that forestry in the Peninsula was moving into a crisis situation as harvesting rates had escalated to unsustainable levels. It was calculated that logging at the current level would reduce the industry’s capacity by as much as 50 per cent by 1990.121 Despite warnings against over-exploitation, by the end of the Fifth Malaysia Plan (1986–90) there was a sudden upturn in log production (see Appendix 2). Some 9.4 million cu m were harvested in 1987, reversing the declining trend in production during the 1985–86 economic recession. About 65 per cent was derived from re-logging, with reduced yields per hectare.122 By 1989 log yields reached an historic high at 13.1 million cu m, with sawn timber production at 6.5 million cu m. By 1993, there was a sharp drop in the Peninsula’s log output, with yields at 11.2 million cu m, compared to over 13 million cu m the previous year.123 In the absence of successful trade negations with other ASEAN producers for higher pricing, the Peninsula faced a potential wood deficit and loss of export earnings. MA N A G I N G MUL T I - PU R P O S E FORE S T S

Endorsement by aid agencies, principally UNDP and FAO, of Malaysia’s targets for increased wood yields left foresters with the formidable task of finding environmentally viable systems of production as spelt out by the TFAP. (T)he role of the forester will ultimately be defined by the way the profession responds to the challenge presented by the enormous opportunities in tropical forestry to contribute to producing more food, higher incomes and greater employment opportunities through appropriate forest industries, more fuelwood and energy and more effective preservation of environmental stability.124

KWells_book_3.fm Page 350 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

350

Foresters put their faith in ‘scientific management’ for integrating biodiversity maintenance with good harvesting practices for sustainable production. Depletion of timber stocks and consumption of a greater variety of species by the wood industry offered the opportunity for higher utilization of hitherto unused and under-used species. Diversity, once a problem for forestry, was now potentially an asset. Furthermore, the MUS developed for lowland forests, was declared to be no longer appropriate in terms of economic, environmental and biological considerations as logging extended rapidly into the hills. The new direction of Malaysian forestry was towards substituting the practice of single felling within the MUS system, regarded by some as environmentally unsound, 125 with alternative techniques to enhance production in natural stands. Apart from wastage, removal of ‘unwanted species’ by poison girdling is harmful to wildlife and selective regeneration undermines diversity. Thus, the 1975–78 UNDP/FAO Forest Development Project for evaluating the physical and financial prospects of the mixed dipterocarp ‘hill forest’ (300–780m) recognized, as a cardinal principle, the ‘environmental and insurance values of natural forests’. A natural forest management regime, where the intensity of felling was reduced as far as possible, was considered feasible in Peninsular Malaysia. The onus was on the forester to find the right balance through employing the tools of ecology. Indeed, as E.O. Wilson’s pointed out: [F]orestry is ultimately a branch of ecology and will advance as a discipline only as swiftly as ecology advances. Progress in both domains will depend in good part on the study of biodiversity … [B]iodiversity is vital to healthy forests, while proper forest management is vital to the maintenance of biodiversity.126

As of 1978 a new Selective Management System (SMS) devised by the Malaysian forester, S.T. Mok, was introduced gradually. This system was novel in that the term ‘selective’ did not necessarily imply Selection Felling in the classical silvicultural sense. Rather, it meant that the first operation was an inventory of the compartment, involving a preliminary assessment of the Forest Reserve base and its characteristics. After this a ‘common sense’ management programme was drawn up involving felling limits and cycles appropriated to the stand as revealed by the inventory. Two or perhaps more fellings were envisaged during the rotation, which remained at 50–80 years, allowing for polycyclic fellings at 20–30 year intervals.127 Under large-scale mechanical logging most regeneration, apart from growth during seed years, was from trees of pole size and larger. This allowed the felling cycle to be reduced to about 30 years, doubling the annual felling area. Only those areas without the minimum quota of commercial species were dedicated to the old MUS or to ‘compensatory’ planting.128 The SMS introduced flexibility in felling, with sustainability contingent upon reducing the intensity of each cut to balance the reduction in the length of the felling cycle. Clearly, a well-disciplined and experienced forest administrator

KWells_book_3.fm Page 351 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Integrating Biodiversity with Development: Myth or Reality?

•

351

was required to regulate such felling, and delegation of the responsibility to the States was not an ideal arrangement. Thus, as a safeguard, the Federal Forestry Department retained some measure of control requiring all coupe licences to be vetted by a very experienced officer at the Kuala Lumpur headquarters. 129 Economic and market forces have played a fundamental role in shaping the SMS,130 as have preceding systems of silviculture. Besides reducing the length of the cutting cycle, SMS is believed to reduce silvicultural costs and timber wastage,131 guaranteeing better economic returns overall. But the merits of the system remain challenged. ‘It is not at all convincing,’ argues S.C. Chin, ‘that the two fellings (over shorter rotations) of the Selective Management System is silviculturally, ecologically and economically better for the management of hill forest, than a single (potentially heavier) felling at the end of a long rotation (70–80 years)’. He sees the shorter cutting cycles under SMS as prejudicial to sustained yield.132 Even under SMS, which limits tree extraction to 10 per cent of the stand by basal area, a 55 per cent damage is generally incurred to other trees, with a significant impact on the primate populations.133 Nonetheless, it is deemed that plant and animal numbers have a fair chance of recovery, provided the logged area is contiguous with climax forest and remains undisturbed for a number of decades. For providing such reservoirs of plant and animal species, WWFM proposed in its strategy for Kelantan appropriate coordination between the Forest and Wildlife Departments for maintaining wildlife sanctuaries inviolate within areas under sustainable logging regimes.134 Advocates of environmentally sustainable harvesting view SMS as the most ecologically and economically viable. Bruenig has supported it on the basis of experiments made in northern Queensland, which demonstrated that the removal of timber did not impair the essential functions of the ecosystem. Others have reservations as a proper working of the SMS depends upon availability of sufficient stocks of pole-sized and larger commercial tree species, which only strict management and adoption of appropriate silvicultural practices can guarantee.135 Though the SMS was adopted as logging moved into the hills, successful adaptation of the system to site conditions is contingent upon appropriate research effort, expertise and support funding. According to S. Appanah, ‘if ever sustainable management of tropical forests is possible, the best chances are with the dipterocarp forests’, displaying the advantages of easy regeneration and fast growth.136 Although much is already known about the dipterocarp forest, there is still more to learn. Questions of fundamental importance are, first, how best to regulate cutting cycles and harvest volumes within regimes of natural regeneration and, second, how best to cope with the problem of declining biodiversity with each cutting cycle.137 Changing market trends and technological challenges compound the silvicultural problems relating to the complex and heterogeneous resource base that the moist tropical hill forest represents.138

KWells_book_3.fm Page 352 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

352

Overcoming the inherent contradiction between conventional notions of forestry and biodiversity maintenance, by the 1980s the forest sector had begun to pay greater attention to the value of natural forests. At the 14th Commonwealth Forestry Conference held in 1993 in Kuala Lumpur the Forest Department proposed that national and international efforts, backed by long-term funding, be intensified ‘to identify, research and manage representative protected core areas of natural forest and woodland’.139 However, any gains expected for biodiversity conservation, through a swing towards ‘natural forest management’, could well be prejudiced by efforts to sustain wood-based exports by planting fast-growing, non-native timber species. Conservationists acknowledge plantation forests to be the obvious means of putting degraded land to good use but make a clear distinction between plantations of non-endemic single species and rich, dynamic stands of natural forest. From the economic point of view it is argued that plantations, though beneficial for pulp production, involve high planting cost and maintenance against weeds and disease. Furthermore, though species such as eucalyptus grow more quickly in the tropics than in the temperate regions, these plantations for pulp production support low biodiversity in comparison with natural forests. Environmentally, they contribute to soil poverty and, in the case of some eucalyptus, are harmful to water regimes. Neither can such plantation forests of non-native species provide sufficient habitat diversity, and thus successful rodents, in the form of rats and squirrels, can increase their population size to reach pest proportions.140 For these reasons, it has been generally recommended that natural forests, unless poor in ‘holistic values’, including timber production, should not be converted to plantations.141 STATE INT R ANSIGENCE

Apart from the problems of tropical forest management, poor enforcement of the raft of environmental legislations passed during 1972–84 142 remained a fundamental problem for biodiversity maintenance. Much evidence of this came to light in the studies conducted by the WWFM for the State Conservation Strategies. The surveys of Terengganu and Kelantan revealed logging and land conversion in contravention of environmental protection guidelines and the Land Conservation Act. Terengganu failed to adopt the basic principle of assigning PRFs to specific functions, namely, Protective, Productive and Amenity. Contiguous zoning of the three categories for maximizing their effectiveness as eco-zones had yet to be recognized in State development planning to prevent isolation and fragmentation of protected areas. Terengganu’s development, which began in the 1960s,143 accelerated towards the end of the 1970s, spurred by opportunities for timber exports to Japan, Taiwan and Singapore. Large areas of the Ketengah, with soils ranging from marginal to poor quality, were committed to oil palm, rubber and cashew nut, ignoring the recommendation of the Natural Resource Section of the State Economic Planning Unit (SEPU/

KWells_book_3.fm Page 353 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Integrating Biodiversity with Development: Myth or Reality?

•

353

UPEN) that they be best retained under forest.144 The merits of upgrading nontimber forest produce, compared to the potential for plantation development, was not properly accessed. WWFM concluded that: [F]orest clearance has proceeded at a rate in excess of the capacity to establish productive agriculture. By conservation principles, failure to invest revenue from the harvest of original forest vegetation in a longterm productive alternative use of the land concerned, is deplorable.145

By the beginning of the 1980s much of Terengganu’s lowland forests had been logged and removed and the habitat sufficiently disturbed to affect large vertebrate populations, especially primates.146 Although revenues from offshore oil and related industries outstripped earnings from timber, Terengganu overlooked the option of holding forest reserves for the future when oil resources could well be depleted. Instead, plans were underway for concessions to three timber complexes, namely Pesama (20,000 ha), Besut Tsuda (20,000 ha) and Dungun (100,000 ha).147 Inattention to sustainable management was also evident in the extraction of NTFP. Harvesting practices, akin to the destructive methods adopted during the gutta-percha ‘fever’, were employed in the collection of eagle-wood (gaharu). Trees of all sizes, from small saplings upward, were felled without sufficient regard to conserving stocks. Similarly, there was poor regulation of the lucrative trade in rotan manau (Calamus ornatus, Calamus manan).148 Lacking at a critical stage in Terengganu’s development was sustainable resource planning through effective coordination between the State government and individual sectors involved in various projects. In Kelantan, where agricultural land was limited,149 the emphasis given by the Third Malaysia Plan to the development of the timber and wood-based industries accelerated forest exploitation. The still remaining dipterocarp forest, covering some 50 per cent of the State’s hilly interior, suffered the ravages of logging. The spectacular rise in the intensity of logging was attested by the timber industry’s emergence by 1979 as the prime revenue earner. 150 Indeed, improved logging technology and the completion in 1984 of the road between Gua Musang and Kuala Kerai ended south Kelantan’s isolation. Soon the rate of logging exceeded the capacity for efficient regulation and supervision, the latter hampered by poor access to logging areas. The State made little progress towards achieving the target set by the National Forestry Council to limit cutting to 12,000 ha per annum by 1985–86.151 In 1989, the harvesting of 23,798 ha was estimated to be three times in excess of sustainable levels. In granting concessions, factors other than sustainability took precedence. Though, procedurally, applications for licences were made to the Forestry Department, it was the State Executive Committee (Exco) that issued concessions based allegedly on political and economic criteria.152 Despite the timber boom, when the opposition government of PAS (Parti Islam seMalaysia/Pan-Malayan Islamic Party) came to power in October 1990

KWells_book_3.fm Page 354 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

•

354

following 12 years of UMNO rule, Kelantan’s debts stood at M$753.77 million. 153 At the same time, the State’s post-election application for a development allocation of M$1 billion under the Sixth Malaysia Plan (1991–95) was slashed by about a third by the Federal Treasury.154 Starved of Federal funds, Kelantan found justification for timber exploitation in Hulu Kelantan. The State’s timber production, at 1.87 million cu m in 1988, rose spectacularly in the 1990s and recorded an all-time high at 3.3 million cu m out of 11.2 million cu m produced in 1994 in the Peninsula as a whole. Together with Terengganu, Kelantan made up for declining production in Pahang.155 It was feared that soon only the area adjacent to the Main Range and the northern edge of Taman Negara would retain representative samples of primary lowland dipterocarp forest. 156 Contributing to accelerated harvesting were the mutually supportive logging and sawmilling industries, which stood to gain by the inception in the 1980s of Integrated Timber Complexes. The Kompleks Perkayuan Kelantan (KPK), like counterpart organizations – Syarakat Jengka in Pahang and KPKKT in Terengganu (see pp. 398–399) – was responsible for the related functions of logging and downstream processing within a fixed 30-year period. Its own staff performed the duties of surveying, silvicultural treatment and replanting, under the supervision of the Forestry Department. Kelantan’s sawn timber output increased from just 140,545 cu m in 1976 to 470,296 cu m in 1986 and rose sharply the following year to 622,769 cu m.157 The timber industry took a heavy toll on Kelantan’s riverine environment. Siltation damaged aquatic life, depleting fish stocks.158 Poorly aligned and constructed logging tracks were singled out as a major cause of erosion. 159 Another was land clearance for agriculture and mining. Kelantan accepted the 1960 Land Conservation Act but enforcement rested on the initiative and efficiency of the State government.160 Gazetting of Forest Reserves had virtually ceased in 1962 and was resumed only in 1989, some 27 years later. In 1980 only 16 per cent of the State was officially designated as Forest Reserve.161 Delays in gazetting permitted agricultural settlement by individuals taking advantage of improved infrastructure. Consequently, any gazetting of PRF included much degraded land. In some instances plantation forests established in degraded PRFs provoked hostility from evicted settlers who uprooted acacia planted by the Forest Department. Illegal syndicates and land development agencies were major contributors to forest degradation and loss.162 In the Jeli and Jedok Forest Reserves about four-fifths of the land area was converted by FELCRA (Federal Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation Authority) and KESEDAR (Kelantan Selatan Development Authority) and VJRs within them were degazetted163 During the course of the 1980s, what was originally largely forest in south Kelantan gave way to agriculture in the lower altitudes. The development agencies, namely KESEDAR, FELDA and FELCRA, opened up huge oil palm and rubber estates involving the resettlement of Batek hunter-gatherers at Post Lebir.164 Often forests were cleared for cultivation on slopes exceeding the 20-

KWells_book_3.fm Page 355 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Integrating Biodiversity with Development: Myth or Reality?

•

355

degree limit set by the 1960 Land Conservation Act and, sometimes, on slopes up to 38 degrees.165 Loss of topsoil rendered the Lebir River the most silt laden in the State, resulting in floods. The Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA), invited to formulate a flood-mitigation plan, proposed multi-purpose dam construction.166 The Lebir Dam was targeted for completion in 1998 but WWFM warned that inundation of developed agricultural lowlands by construction of the dam would only increase pressure for substitute land in the more environmentally sensitive southwest, perpetuating the cycle of forest loss and land degradation.167 Although under the Forestry Act of 1984 the Kelantan State Executive Committee pledged not to permit logging in Forest Reserves, licensing was to a large degree influenced by political favour. Concessions, especially to bumiputera, were often allowed to run for less than the normal 30-year cutting cycle under SMS and re-logging of coupes permitted at even shorter intervals. Also widespread was the awarding of Replacement Areas (Kawasan Ganti) on claims of concessions falling short of the standard level of timber resource. Overall, due to manpower shortages, the SMS did not totally replace the MUS, particularly in the smaller concessions. Where introduced, silvicultural treatment could not keep pace with the rate of logging and was often defective. There were shortfalls in the control and supervision of logging, including marking out of concessions, assessment of regeneration, post-harvest enumeration and treatment, and the updating of inventories. These operations were calculated to require at least three times the available manpower, which in 1986 totalled only 546, with a staff-forest ratio of 1: 1546 ha.168 The Kelantan government’s invitation of WWFM to draw up a conservation strategy conveyed SEPU’s faith in integrated development planning. Nonetheless, as the 1977 political crisis in the State had so clearly demonstrated, any move that involved reform in the timber sector did not find easy accommodation within the labyrinth of local politics. 169 By the 1980s, the desirability of multi-purpose forests, reserves and parks to optimize the benefits of the fast-shrinking Peninsular forests had entered the political rhetoric but was not adequately translated into reality. Insufficient areas were set aside as TPAs and reconciling biodiversity maintenance with productivity in PRFs proved a difficult task. Environmentally friendly harvesting practices implied lower yields and shifted attention to the production of plantation wood. This undermined the objective of maximizing biodiversity conservation to make up, in part, for the depletion of forest cover. As the largest producer of tropical timber, Malaysia’s shortfalls in policy initiatives soon attracted international scrutiny. NOTES 1

E.O. Wilson, interview with Harvard Magazine, quoted in M.J. Plotkin, ‘Traditional knowledge of medicinal plants: The search for new jungle medicines’, in O. Akerele, V. Heywood and H. Synge (eds), The Conservation of Medicinal Plants, Proceedings of an International Consultation, 21–27 March 1988, at Chiang Mai, Cambridge: CUP, 1991, p. 54.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 356 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation 2 3

4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31 32

•

356

Muhammad Jabil, ‘Problems and prospects in tropical rainforest management for sustained yield‘, Malayan Forester, 46 (1983), iv, pp. 399–400. Malaysia: Official Year Book 1970, vol. 10, Kuala Lumpur, Govt. Press, 1972, p. 237; Foreign Tourist Statistics, Tourist Development Corporation, quoted in Berger, Malaysia’s Forests, p. 189; MOSTE, National Policy on Biological Diversity, Kuala Lumpur, National Institute of Publishing, 1998, Table 4.39, p. 96. Third Malaysia Plan, p. 224. ‘A Blueprint for Conservation in Peninsular Malaysia’, p. 3. K. Miller, ‘The Bali Action Plan: A framework for the future of protected areas’, in J.A. McNeely and K.R. Miller (eds), National Parks, Conservation, and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society, Proceedings of the World Congress on National Parks, Bali, Indonesia, 11–22 Oct. 1982(Organized by the Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, IUCN), Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1984, p. 760. Stevens, ‘The conservation of wildlife in West Malaysia’, pp. 54–55. ‘Conservation in the country: Taman Negara’, Malayan Naturalist, 36, i (1982) p. 3. Editorial, [Timber crisis], Malayan Naturalist, March-June, 1979 (unnumbered), p. 1. Adam Malik, ‘Opening Address: Protected areas and political reality’, in McNeely and Miller (eds), National Parks, Conservation, and Development, p. 10. ‘A Blue Print for Conservation in Peninsular Malaysia’, p. 5. Sir Frank Darling, ‘National Parks: A matter of survival’, Parks, 4, iv (1980), reprinted in Malaysian Naturalist, 33, iii & iv (1980) p. 8. ‘A plea for the preservation of Taman Negara’, Editorial, Berita MMA (Malaysian Medical Association), June 1982; Malayan Naturalist, 36, iv (1983) pp. 3–4. Mohd Darus Mahmud ‘Forest resource base, policy and legislation’, The Malayan Forester, 42, iv (1979) pp. 344, 346. Mohd Khan Momin Khan, ‘The Distribution of large animals in Taman Negara’, in Ho, et al. (eds), National Parks of Malaysia, p. 125. Mohd Khan, ‘The Distribution of large animals in Taman Negara’, p. 125. F.S.P. Ng, ‘Taman Negara as a centre of endemicity for trees’, in Journal of Wildlife and Parks, 10 (1990), A Special Issue to Commemorate the Golden Jubilee of Taman Negara, 1939– 1989, p. 52. Lord Medway, ‘Importance of Taman Negara in the conservation of mammals’, in Ho, et al. (eds), National Parks of Malaysia, MNJ, 24, iii and iv (1971) p. 214; D.R. Wells, ‘Taman Negara and ornithology’, in Journal of Wildlife and Parks, 10 (1990), p. 143. Wyatt-Smith, Manual of Malayan Silviculture, I, p. III-7/20. Stevens, ‘The conservation of wildlife in Malaysia’, p. 99. D.R. Wells, ‘Resident birds’, in Lord Medway and D.R. Wells, The Birds of the Malay Peninsula, vol. 5: Conclusion and Survey of Every Species, London: H.F. & G. Witherby, 1976, p. 9. F.S.P. Ng, ‘Forest tree biology’, in Cranbrook (ed.), Key Environments: Malaysia, p. 105. Ng, ‘Ecological principles of tropical lowland rain forest conservation’, p. 372. Soepadmo, ‘Plant diversity of the Malesian tropical rain forest’, p. 30. M. Jacobs, ‘The study of minor forest products’, Flora Malesiana Bulletin, 35 (1982) p. 3782. See pp. 2–3. Some one-third of a century after the start of the Flora Malesiana project of the Leiden Herbarium, only 19 per cent of the 23,000 species of seed plants (Spermatophytes) had been written up. M. Jacobs, ‘The tropical rain forest’, in R. Kruk, A.A. Oldermann et al. (eds. and trans.), The First Encounter, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1981, p. 30. Myers, The Sinking Ark, pp. 123–124. Whitmore, Tropical Rain Forests of the Far East, pp. 287–288. Lignin is also used for manufacturing plastics, resins, soil stabilizers and asphalt emulsion stabilizers, rubber reinforcers, fertilizers, vanillin and tanning agents. Ibid. O. Hamann, ‘The joint IUCN-WWF plant conservation programme and its interest in medicinal plants’, in Akerele et al. (eds), The Conservation of Medicinal Plants, p. 19. Burkill, Economic Products, I, pp. 542–543.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 357 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Integrating Biodiversity with Development: Myth or Reality?

•

357

33 M. I. Mohd Azmi and H. Norini, ‘Supply and demand of medicinal plants: A preliminary study in the northern states of Peninsular Malaysia’, in Chang Yu Shyun, Masura Mohtar, V. Subramaniam and Zainal Abu Samad (eds), Towards Bridging Science and the Herbal Industry, Proceedings of the Seminar on Medicinal Aromatic Plants, 12–13 Sept. 2000, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM, 2001, p. 17. 34 Azizol Abdul Kadir and Rasadah Mat Ali, ‘Medicinal plants in Malaysia: Their potential and utilization’, in M.N.B. Nair, Mohd Hamami Sahari and Zaidon Ashaari (eds), Sustainable Management of Non-Wood Forest Products, Proceedings of an International Workshop, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 14–17 Oct. 1997, Serdang, Selangor: Universiti Putra Malaysia Press, 1998, p. 27. 35 Kanta Kumari, Dat Yit May, Tuan Marina Tuan Ibrahim and Idris Shafie, ‘Economic significance of medicinal plants in Peninsular Malaysia’, in Lee Su See, Dan Yit Meng, I.D. Gauld and J. Bishop (eds), Conservation, Management and Development of Forest Resources, Proceedings of the Malaysian-United Kingdom Programme Workshop, 21–24 Oct. 1996, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM, 1998, pp. 228, 232–233. 36 Burkill, Economic Products, I, pp. 1000–1001; Corner, I, Wayside Trees, I, p. 604. 37 The compound, Calanolide A, extracted from Calophyllum lanigerum, is a potential antiAIDS drug. Under a 1996 joint-venture agreement, the Sarawak government and the Illinois-based Medichem Research Incorporated hold exclusive rights to patent Calanolides. See K. ten Kate and A.M. Wells, ‘The access and benefit sharing policies of the United States National Cancer Institute: A Comparative account of the discovery and development of the drug Calanolide and Topotecan’. Submitted by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, 1998, to the Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 38 Gan Boon Keong and G. Weinland, ‘Multiple-use forest management and non-timber produce’, in Lee et al. (eds), Conservation, Management and Development of Forest Resources, pp. 190–191. 39 R. and C. Prescott-Allen, ‘Wild plants and crop improvement’, World Conservation Strategy, Occasional Paper, No. 1, IUCN, Godalming, 1982, pp. 8–9; National Policy on Biological Diversity, Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment, Kuala Lumpur: National Institute of Publishing, 1998, pp. 6–8, 12. 40 EPU-WWFM, ‘Malaysian National Conservation Strategy: National Resource Accounting’, vol. IV, pp. 92–93. 41 Myers, The Sinking Ark, pp. 65, 72–73, 125. For the increased resistance of the brown plant hopper to spraying in the paddy fields of Peninsular Malaysia see J. Kathirithamby, ‘Sprayers of destruction’, Letters to the Editor, NST, 5 Aug. 1977; J. Kathirithamby, ‘A survey of the natural enemies of rice leaf planthoppers (Homoptera Delphacidae) in Peninsular Malaysia’, Department of Agriculture, Kuala Lumpur, 1983, pp.1–15. 42 Wells, Birds of the Thai-Malay Peninsula, vol. I, pp. 436–437. 43 G.L. Lucas, ‘The survival of species genetic diversity’, in McNeely and Miller (eds), National Parks, Conservation, and Development, p. 56. 44 MOSTE, National Policy on Biological Diversity, 14. 45 J. Wyatt-Smith, ‘Keynote: Problems and prospects for natural management of tropical forests’, in F. Mergen and J.R. Vincent (eds), Natural Management of Tropical Moist Forests: Silvicultural and Management Prospects of Sustainable Utilization, New Haven: Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 1986, p. 18. 46 Although most animal species are adaptable to changing conditions and return to logged forests, their continued survival is contingent upon the intensity and frequency of logging. Crucial is the availability of sufficient food after felling, the provision of adequate refuges and the guarantee that all species de-colonize and stabilize before the next logging. See M. Wong, ‘Understorey birds as indicators of regeneration in a patch of selectively logged West Malaysian rain forest’, in A.W. Diamond and T.E. Lovejoy (eds), Conservation of Tropical Forest Birds, Cambridge: ICBP Technical Publications, Cambridge, 1985, pp. 257–258; A.D. Johns, ‘Effects of selective logging on the ecological organization of a peninsular Malaysian rain forest avifauna’, Forktail, 1 (1986) pp. 74–76. Whitmore, Tropical Rain Forests of the Far East, pp. 207, 272–275. 47 G.W.H. Davison, S. Kumaran, D. Sharma and Yeap Chin Aik, ‘Assessment of wildlife and its management in relation to forestry in the pilot area of the Malaysian-German sustainable management and conservation project’, in Chin Tuck Yuan, R.H. Krezdorn and Yong Teng Koon (eds), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Malaysian-German Sustainable Forest Manage-

KWells_book_3.fm Page 358 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

48 49 50 51 52 53

54

55 56 57

58 59 60 61 62

63 64 65

66 67 68 69

•

358

ment and Conservation Project in Peninsular Malaysia, 11–12 Feb. 1998, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM, pp. 129–150. Burgess, ‘The effects of logging’, pp. 236–237. Stevens, ‘The conservation of wildlife in West Malaysia’, p. 99; Burgess, ‘Ecological factors in hill and mountain forests’, p. 128. For an account of the effects of forest clearance on large mammal populations in the Peninsula up to the 1960s, see Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘Human impact on large mammal populations’, pp 215–248. Ng, ‘Ecological principles of conservation’, p. 372. C.W. Marsh and W. L. Wilson, A Survey of Primates in Peninsular Malaysian Forests, Bangi, Selangor: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia/ University of Cambridge, UK, 1981, pp. 82–83. A. D. Johns, Timber, the Environment and Wildlife in the Malaysian Rain Forests, Final Report, 1989, University of Aberdeen: Institute of South-East Asian Biology, 1989, p. 33; A.D. Johns, Timber Production and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Rain Forests, Cambridge: CUP, p. 96. See Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘Human impact on large mammal populations’, pp. 230–231. Mohd Khan noted the escalation of the elephant control problem since oil palm became a major industry. Mohd Khan Mohmin Khan, ‘Animal conservation strategies’, in Cranbrook (ed.), Key Environments, p. 262. W. Stevens, ‘The rare large mammals of Malaya’, MNJ, 22 (1968), p. 12; Mohamed Khan Momin Khan, ‘Population and distribution of the Malayan elephant, Elephas maximus, in Peninsular Malaysia’, Journal of Wild Life and Parks, 4 (1985), pp. 15–16. A. D Johns, ‘Species conservation and the management of tropical forests’, IUCN/ITTO, in T. Whitmore and J.A. Sayer (eds), Tropical Deforestation and Species Extinction, London: Chapman & Hall, 1992, p. 28. For the conservation of fauna a minimum of 500 individuals, on average, is considered necessary to secure their long-term survival. In terms of habitat, for maintaining a viable population of primates, for example, a contiguous area of 33,300 ha is required. Kanta Kumari, ‘Mainstreaming biodiversity conservation: A Peninsular Malaysian case’, International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 2, iii (1995), p. 189. For management intervention through promoting various methods of habitat preservation in logged forests, see Johns, Timber Production and Biodiversity Conservation, Chapter 8. Whitmore, Tropical Rain Forests of the Far East, p. 275. ‘Don’t protect the wild boar, Federal Government told’, NST, 14 July 1984, reproduced in Malaysian Naturalist, 38, ii (1984) p. 12. MNS, ‘A Blue Print for Conservation in Peninsular Malaysia’, p. 5. M. Nordin and Hasnah Samian, ‘The Primate trade in Malaysia’, Proceedings of the Symposium on the Biology of Peninsular Malaysian Primates, Journal of Malaysian Applied Biology, Special Issue, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia/Universiti Pertanian Malaysia/University of Cambridge, UK, 1981, pp. 183–191; Department of Wildlife and National Parks (PERHILITAN), Annual Report, 1989, Kuala Lumpur, p. 59. Taman Negara, covered by a separate Act, is excluded from the 1980 Act. ‘National Parks Act 1980’, Act 226, Laws of Malaysia, Clause 5. By Clause 5 of the Amendment, representation of the State Authority on the National Parks Advisory Council was increased from one to three. Furthermore, by Clause 3 (3) the State Authority was permitted to use and occupy land for mining and the construction and maintenance of roads, airstrips, reservoirs, dams and buildings related to the service industry, subject not to the ‘approval’ of the Minister as in the original Act but in ‘consultation’ with the Minister. Similarly, ‘concurrence of the Minister in writing’ under the original Act for revocation of any area gave way in the Amendment, under Clause 7 (1), to what was vaguely defined as ‘consultation’ with the Minister. Act 226: ‘National Parks Act 1980’, Amendment Act: A571/83, Laws of Malaysia. EPU-WWFM, ‘Malaysian National Conservation Strategy’, vol. II: ‘Towards Sustainable Development’, p. 318. EPU-WWFM, ‘Malaysian National Conservation Strategy’, vol. II, pp. 318–319. Kiew Bong Heang, ‘The national park system and the Blueprint for Conservation in Malaysia – Promises unfulfilled’, Malayan Naturalist, 37, iii (1984) p. 5. The Act provides for the Park Advisory Council to include representatives from the Treasury,

KWells_book_3.fm Page 359 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Integrating Biodiversity with Development: Myth or Reality?

70

71 72 73

74

75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89

90 91

•

359

EPU, Tourist Development Cooperation and Forestry, but none from JHEOA (Orang Asli Affairs Department) or any scientific institution. See p. 324. Apart from Johor, Perlis created the modest 5,000-ha Perlis State Park in 1997 for multi-purpose development. Comprising the Wang Mu Forest Reserve (2,859 ha) and the Mata Ayer Forest Reserve (2,156 ha), the Park makes up 49 per cent of the State’s PRF. Adjoining the Thaleban National Park in Thailand, the Park is designed to promote transborder protection under the aegis of the 1997 Hanoi Action Plan for the conservation of ASEAN Heritage Parks and Reserves. ‘The administration and management of the Perlis State Park’, in Biodiversity and Management of Perlis State Park: Physical, Biological and Social Environments of Wang Mu, Perlis: Department of Forestry, Perlis, 2002, p. 41. S.S. Yoga, ‘Buffers for protected areas’, Star, 6 July 1999. Leong Yuek Kwong, ‘The making of a national park – Some problems and issues’, Malayan Naturalist, 37, iii, pp. 11–15. The opinion was expressed by the Committee on Forest Development in the Tropics (CFDT), which constituted Heads of Forest Departments from 45 tropical nations, representatives from development agencies and NGO observers. Collins, et al. (eds), The Conservation Atlas, p. 68. M.E.D. Poore and J. A. Sayer, The Management of Tropical Moist Forest Lands: Ecological Guidelines, IUCN Tropical Forest Programme, Gland: Switzerland, 1987, pp. 2–3; J. A. Sayer, ‘Promise in Paris’, in ‘Tropical forest conservation: The art of the impossible’. A report compiled by J. A. Sayer and J. Wheare, IUCN Bulletin, vol.17, nos i–iii (1986) p. 17. FAO, ‘Tropical Forest Action Plan’, Committee on Forest Development in the Tropics, Rome, 1985, p. 2. Ibid., p. 4. M. Seda, ‘Global environmental concerns and priorities: Implications for ASEAN’, in M. Seda (ed.), Environmental Management in ASEAN: Perspectives on Critical Regional Issues, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1993, pp. 2–15. Poore and Sayer, The Management of Tropical Moist Forest Lands, pp. 2–3. D. Charles, ‘World Bank bows to pressure over rain forests’, New Scientist, 6 Oct. 1990. Seda, ‘Global environmental concerns and priorities’, p. 23. Brundtland Report: Our Common Future: The World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford: OUP,1987, p. xi. Ibid., p. 27. ‘Tropical Forests: A Call for Action’, Plan III: Country Investment Profiles, Washington D.C.: World Resources Institute, 1985, p. 14. ‘National Forestry Act 1984’, Part IV, Clauses 56–60. Fourth Malaysia Plan 1981–1985, Kuala Lumpur: National Printing Dept., 1981, pp. 270– 271. Collins et al. (eds), The Conservation Atlas, p. 191. Tropical Forest Action Plan for Malaysia, Ministry of Primary Industries Malaysia, 1989, pp. 1–2, 47–49. Plantation forests included Acacia mangium, Paraserianthes falcataria and Gmelina arborea. Hurst, Rain Forest Politics, p. 64;Yong Chai Ting, ‘Compensatory plantations in Peninsular Malaysia’, Proceedings: Seminar on Forest Plantation Development in Malaysia, 9–14 July 1985, Sabah, Table 1, pp. 35–36, 44. ‘Management of tropical rain forests – Utopia or chance of survival?’ Summary Statement, International Symposium of the German Foundation for International Development. Submitted to the public hearing on the destruction of tropical forests, Committee on Agriculture, Council of Europe, Lausanne, 9 March 1989; Hurst, Rain forest Politics, p. 259. J. A. Sayer, Comment, 23 June 1986, in ‘Tropical Forest Action Plan’, Committee on Forest Development in the Tropics, Rome, FAO; J. A. Sayer, 19 Oct. 1987, WWF Press Release, 41, ii (1987). The extraction of rubber wood increased from about 100,000 cu m in the early 1980s to 1.84 million cu m by 1992. It was calculated that the total of 1.7 million ha of rubber plantations in 1993 would yield 9 million cu m of wood and, similarly, the 1.8 million ha of oil palm would produce 15 million cu m of trunk for panel products. Salleh Mohd Nor and N. Manokaran, ‘Mechanism for prioritisation and management of tropical forest for conserva-

KWells_book_3.fm Page 360 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation

92

93 94 95 96 97 98 99

100 101 102 103 104 105

106 107 108 109 110 111

112 113

•

360

tion’, in Thang Hooi Chiew et al. (eds), People, the Environment and Forestry: Conflict or Harmony? Proceedings of the 14th Commonwealth Conference, 13–18 Sept. 1993, Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Primary Industries, 1993, p. 258; Ismail Awang, ‘Future directions for sustainable forestry in Peninsular Malaysia: Environmental issues’, in S. Appanah, K.L. Khoo, H.T. Chan and L.T. Hong (eds), Forestry and Forest Products Research: Proceedings of the Conference on Forestry and Forest Products Research, 1993, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM, 1994, p. 3. NST, ‘Our Unique Heritage’, 21 March 1989, published in Malayan Naturalist, 42, iv (1989) p. 35; Haron Abu Hassan and Mohd Dusuki Mohd Nor, Sustainable Forest Management in Malaysia, Commonwealth Forestry Initiative, London: Commonwealth Secretariat, 1997, p. 3. In 1999 the Deputy Minister for Primary Industries urged forest and timber regulating bodies to redefine the term ‘forest’ to include oil palm and rubber plantations. Star, 3 Aug. 1999. H. Ngau, T. Jalong Apoui and Chee Yoke Ling, ‘Malaysian timber: Exploitation for whom?’ Forest: Resources Crisis in the Third World, Conference on ‘Forest Resource Crisis in the Third World’, 6–8 Sept. 1986, Penang: Sahabat Alam Malaysia, 1987, p. 42. Mohd Darus Mahmud, ‘Forest resource base, policy and legislation’, p. 339. Shaik Mohd Noor Alam S.M. Hussain, ‘Uniform forest laws – Whose dilemma?’ The Malayan Forester, 46, iii (1983) p. 338–389. See p. 317. Hurst, Rainforest Politics, p. 63. Collins et al. (eds), The Conservation Atlas, p. 185; Thang Hooi Chiew, ‘Forest management systems of tropical high forest, with special reference to Peninsular Malaysia’, Forest Ecology and Management, 24 (1988) p. 5. G.W.H. Davison, ‘How much forest is there?’ Malayan Naturalist, 35, i & ii (1982) p. 12. Setting the altitudinal limit of lowland forest at 1,000m, ‘Forest Inventory II, (1981)’ arrived at a higher estimate of about 3 million ha of lowland primary forest. Vincent and Rozali, Environment and Development, p. 117. Ngau, et al., ‘Malaysian Timber’, p. 40. Forestry Statistics, Peninsular Malaysia, 1979–1985, Economic Unit, Forestry Department, Kuala Lumpur, 1986. ‘Country Report Malaysia’, Asian Forest Resource Database, ASEAN-Canada, Institute of Forest Management, Kuala Lumpur, 1988, Table 5. Wyatt-Smith, Manual of Malayan Silviculture, I, p. III-7/22. Collins et al. (eds), The Conservation Atlas, p. 186. FAO, ‘Management planning and operational control of mechanized harvesting systems for the utilization of the national rain forest resources’, Forest Development, Peninsular Malaysia, United Nations Development Programme, FAO Report, Kuala Lumpur, 1978, pp. 4–5; S.T. Mok, ‘Forest management strategies for sustained maximum socio-economic benefits’, Malayan Forester, 40, i, p. 24. S.C. Chin, ‘Looking after our forests’, Star, 28 Dec. 1988, Reproduced in Asia Pacific Forest Industries, Feb. 1989, p.15. Johns, ‘Species conservation and the management of tropical forests’, p. 28. Hashim Saad, ‘An overview of environmental and socio-economic aspects of tropical deforestation in Malaysia’. Paper presented to the Expert Group Meeting: ‘The Environmental and Socio-Economic Aspects of Tropical Deforestation’, 28 Jan.–3 Feb. 1989, Bangkok, n.p. Mohd Darus Mahmud, ‘Forest resource base, policy and legislation’, p. 337. See also pp. 416– 417. Quoted in G.R. Munro, ‘The Malaysian balance of payments to 1981’, in D. Lim (ed.), Readings on Malaysian Economic Development, Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1975, p. 59. M. Gillis ‘Malaysia: Public policies and the tropical forest’, in R. Repetto and M. Gillis (eds), Public Policies and the Misuse of Forest Resources, Cambridge: CUP, p. 120. The Southeast Asian Lumber Producer’s Association formed in February 1975 was responsible for initiating the gradual limitation on log exports. Myers, The Sinking Ark, 1979, p. 184. Malaysia Year Book 1972, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1974, p. 267. Malaysia Year Book 1972, p. 267; Malaysia Year Book 1974, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1975, p. 194; ‘A report on joint ESCAP-FAO mission, to major tropical timber producing countries in Asia and the Pacific’, Kuala Lumpur, 1980, p. 33.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 361 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Integrating Biodiversity with Development: Myth or Reality?

•

361

114 Baharuddin Ghazali, ‘Peninsular Malaysia’s timber industry in perspective’, Proceedings: Malaysian Timber Marketing Conference, Organized by the Malaysian Timber Industries Board, 6–7 Dec. 1983, Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Primary Industries, n.d., Table 1, p. 48. 115 See Tables 3.27 and 3.28, in Gillis, ‘Malaysia: Public policies and the tropical forest’, pp. 156– 157. 116 S. Sothi Rachagan and Tunku Shamsul Bahrin, ‘Development without destruction: The need for a pragmatic forest policy in Malaysia’, Planter, 59 (1983) Table 4, p. 496. 117 Gillis, ‘Malaysia: Public policies and the tropical forest’, p. 120. 118 Baharuddin Ghazali, ‘Peninsular Malaysia’s timber industry in perspective’, p. 51. 119 ESCAP–FAO, ‘Report on a mission to major tropical timber producing countries in Asia and the Pacific, 1980’, p. 35; Haja Maideen, ‘Marketing challenges for sawn timber’, in Proceedings: Malaysian Timber Marketing Conference, p. 54. 120 Vincent and Rozali calculated that from the purely monetary angle, the price for full-sized logs in Peninsular Malaysia remained constant in real terms from 1970 to 1990, at 1978 price levels. ‘Forests’, in Vincent and Rozali, Environment and Development, p. 130. 121 ESCAP–FAO, ‘Report on a mission to major tropical timber producing countries in Asia and the Pacific, 1980’, pp. 32–33. 122 Chin, ‘Looking after our forests’, p. 16. 123 Forestry Statistics, Peninsular Malaysia, 1993, pp. 18, 21. 124 FAO, ‘Tropical Forest Action Plan’, Committee on Forest Development in the Tropics, FAO, Rome, 1985, p. 3. 125 E. F. Bruenig, Conservation and Management of Tropical Rain Forests: An Integrated Approach to Sustainability, Oxford: CAB International, 1996, p. 98. 126 E.O. Wilson, ‘Forest ecosystems more complex than we know’, in G.H. Aplet, N. Johnson, T. Olson and V. Alarie (eds), Defining Sustainable Forestry,Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1993, p. xiii. 127 P. F. Burgess, personal communication. Also see Muhammad Jabil, ‘Malaysia’s forestry policies: Sustained production of topical hardwood’. Paper presented at the 75th Jubilee of the Netherlands Timber Board, Sept. 1984, The Netherlands: Nederlandse Houtbond, 1984, p. 4. 128 Whitmore, Tropical Rain Forests of the Far East, p. 96; Collins et al. (eds), The Conservation Atlas, pp. 45–46. 129 P.F. Burgess, personal communication. 130 Chin, ‘Managing Malaysia’s forests for sustained production’, p. 7. 131 Salleh Mohd Nor, ‘Forest management’, pp. 135–136. 132 Chin, ‘Managing Malaysia’s forests for sustainable production’, p. 7. 133 WWFM, ‘A Conservation Strategy for Trengganu’, p. 31 134 WWFM, ‘A Conservation Strategy for Negeri Kelantan’, II, p. 94. 135 M.N. Salleh and J. Baharudin, ‘Silvicultural practices in Peninsular Malaysia’, in The Future of Tropical Rain Forests in South-East Asia, Commission on Ecology, IUCN, Environmentalist, 5, Supplement No. 10 (1985), p. 86. 136 Appanah, ‘Management of natural forests’, p. 143. 137 Appannah and Khoo, ‘Introduction: Hard times for dipterocarps’, p. 3. 138 Mohammad Jabil, ‘Malaysia’s forestry policies: Sustained production of tropical hardwood’, p. 9. 139 Progress Report, 1989–1992, Prepared by the Forestry Department of Malaysia for the Fourteenth Commonwealth Forestry Conference, 1993, Kuala Lumpur, 1993, Recommendation 5, p. 2. 140 WWFM, ‘A Conservation Strategy for Trengganu’, pp. 30–31, 42. 141 WWFM and Selangor State Planning and Development Unit, ‘Executive Summary Proposals for a Conservation Strategy for Selangor Darul Ehsan’, July 1988, p. 24. 142 See Appendix 4. 143 There was a dramatic increase in land alienation from just 11,888 ha in 1965 to 928,357 ha in 1970. Annual Report 1970, Forest Department, Terengganu. 144 WWFM, ‘A Conservation Strategy for Trengganu’, pp. 48–49. 145 Ibid., p. 55.

KWells_book_3.fm Page 362 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:19 PM

Nature and Nation 146 147 148 149 150

•

362

Ibid., pp. 34–35; 43–44. Ibid., pp. 41–42, 44. WWFM, ‘A Conservation Strategy for Trengganu’, pp. 67. Third Malaysia Plan, p. 211. The following figures presented by the Kelantan Chief Minister at the Legislative Assembly show the sharp rise in timber revenues compared with revenues from other sources (M$ millions). Year Forest Revenue Other Revenues 1972 0.6 – 1974 2.0 15.9 1977 7.6 19.4 1978 9.7 21.6 1979 21.3 13.9 1980 20.3 15.4 1981 14.4 16.7 Proceedings, State Legislative Assembly, Kelantan, 30 Nov. 1981.

151 The Ruler’s speech, Proceedings of the State Legislative Assembly, 28 Nov. 1981. 152 D. Tsuruoka, ‘Cutting down to size: Businessmen cry foul in Malaysia’s timber industry’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 4 July 1991. 153 Suhaini Azman, ‘Coastal erosion’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 1 Nov. 1990. 154 Suhaini Azman, ‘Waiting game: Islamic state government runs into problems’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 28 Feb. 1991. 155 WWFM, ‘A Conservation Strategy for Negeri Kelantan’, II, p. 112; ‘Production of logs by States’, Forestry Statistics, Forestry Department Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, 1995, p. 29. 156 WWFM, ‘A Conservation Strategy for Negeri Kelantan’, II, p. 26. 157 Ibid., II, pp. 114, 116. 158 Ibid., II, pp. 59–60. 159 Halcrow-ULG Ltd., ‘Land Use and Forest Management Strategy for Southern Kelantan’, State and Rural Development Project, Govt. of Malaysia, UNDP-World Bank, Swindon, London, 1981, p. 42; ‘Pergau Dam Project: Terrestrial and Aquatic (including Archaeology) Sub-Study’, Final Report submitted by the Bureau of Research Consultancy, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, for Lembaga Letrik Negara [National Electricity Board], Sept., 1987, p. 2. 160 Halcrow-ULG Ltd., Land Use and Forest Management Strategy for Southern Kelantan, pp. 63–64. 161 Similarly, Pahang had only 19.6 per cent of forest under reservation. ‘Comparative Statement of Areas of Forested and Non-Forested Land 1980’, PTP, 1980, Kuala Lumpur, Forest Department, p. 39. 162 WWFM, ‘A Conservation Strategy for Negeri Kelantan’, vol. I: ‘Executive Summary’, 1991, p. 13; vol. II: Main Report, 1991, pp. 99–100. 163 WWFM, ‘A Conservation Strategy for Negeri Kelantan’, II, pp. 99, 106. 164 Lim Jit Sai and A. H. Basit and Yew Hwee Hwang, Detailed Reconnaissance Survey of the Kesedar Region, Kelantan, Soil and Analytical Services Branch, Division of Agriculture, vol. I, Ministry of Agriculture, Kuala Lumpur, 1980, pp. 169–170. 165 WWFM, ‘A Conservation Strategy for Negeri Kelantan’, II, p. 192. 166 Ibid., II, pp. 12, 79, 82. 167 Ibid., II, pp. 206–207. 168 Ibid., I, p. 14; II, pp. 107–111. 169 In 1977, the new Chief Minister, Mohamad Nasir of PAS, resolved to wipe out corruption. Among his efforts at cleaning the Augean stables was the cancellation of a timber lease covering 141,700 ha, paying compensation of M$3.5 million to the company. Several party leaders and members whose interests were damaged engineered his expulsion from PAS, creating a political impasse that obliged the Federal government to take temporary charge of the State and declare an emergency. Shafruddin, The Federal Factor, pp. 347–353.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 363 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

PART VI

National Resource, Global Heritage, 1984–2000

KWells_book_4.fm Page 364 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

364

Mangrove (inside P.F.E.) Peat swamp (inside P.F.E.) Peat swamp (outside P.F.E.) Inland forest (inside P.F.E.) Inland forest (outside P.F.E.)

Forest cover in 1962

Map 4: Forest cover, 2000 (details from Forestry Department, Kuala Lumpur; 1962 details from J. Wyatt-Smith, 1964)

KWells_book_4.fm Page 365 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

CHAPTER TWELVE

The Politics of Resource The real world of interlocked economic and ecological systems will not change; the politics and institutions concerned must. – G.H. Brundtland1

xternal criticism of Malaysia’s forest management drew the nation into the ambit of global environmental politics. Reluctant to see development compromised by the nation’s tarnished image, the Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad adopted a policy of impressive brinkmanship, taking centre stage in the environmental politics of the 1990s. Here I discuss Malaysia’s role in the negotiations at UNCED’s 1992 Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro and the resulting international conventions and regulatory measures adopted towards the global initiative for sustainable development.

E

MALAYSIA AND THE GLOBAL ENV IRONMENTAL AGENDA

The environmental impact of post-war development has been particularly significant with reference to the forests of the moist tropics because of their unique biodiversity. Norman Myers in The Sinking Ark drew attention more than 20 years ago to the beleaguered Southeast Asian and the Amazonian rain forests.2 Again, Emil Salim, as Environment Minister for Indonesia, highlighted the plight of Third World countries, rich in genetic resources but unable to reap equitable returns from sustainable forest use.3 These concerns formed part of a larger global discourse on climate and biodiversity that rapidly gained strength, premised on the value of the rain forest as national and global heritage. 4 Popular advertisement of the rain forests as carbon sinks for arresting global warming from industrial emissions inspired campaigns against their destruction, spearheaded by the anti-hamburger alliance in the developed world. 5 By the 1960s and the 1970s the New Environmental Movement in the North had gained momentum through public campaigns and direct action. By comparison, in Malaysia, where political culture excluded a radical stance, environmental NGOs engaged largely in sober dialogue and advocacy, garnering popular support through the press. This situation rapidly changed with the attention that IUCN’s World Conservation Strategy brought to bear on the threatened rain forest. The traumatized lives of forest dwellers as a consequence of rain forest depletion provided a powerful agenda for the Rainforest Action Network,

KWells_book_4.fm Page 366 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

366

launched in 1986 by the US filmmaker Randy Hayes of California. The chainsawing of majestic Malaysian dipterocarps became as effective a visual symbol of the ecological holocaust as the burning forests of the Amazon. Malaysia, by now the largest exporter of tropical timber, could hardly escape international scrutiny, a situation that emboldened local NGOs to globalize their links and step up advocacy. In 1986, in conjunction with the annual meeting of the Friends of the Earth (FoE) in Penang, Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM) organized the first international conference on rain forest destruction.6 At his opening address, SAM’s president, Mohammed Idris, described the rain forest destruction as an international crisis. The blame for tropical deforestation and environmental degradation was laid squarely on Western consumer demands.7 The new strategy launched by international NGOs under the FoE’s initiative linked conservation to trade. ITTO, a product of the 1983 International Forest Trade Agreement and Action Plan (IFTAAP), was identified as an appropriate regulatory body for producers and consumers, and disappointment was expressed over the political deadlocks that delayed its setting up.8 Some, like Charles Secrett of FoE, envisaged campaigning organizations playing a key role, alongside WWF, in seeking ‘sensible solutions’ and guidelines for ITTO.9 With WWF funding, FoE drew up a comprehensive report, ‘Timber’, which identified producers and consumers and the volume of hardwood entering the UK market. High on FoE’s agenda was finding ways and means of ensuring that only sustainably produced timber entered the European markets. It lobbied trade and manufacturing associations in the UK to adopt ‘Code of Conduct’ and ‘Seal of Approval’ Schemes. 10 The tropical timber trade issue and its international political and social implications effectively extended the global reach of Western NGOs. On the home front, the Penang-based SAM, hitherto treated with suspicion in official quarters because of its association with FoE, progressively earned credibility. Among other initiatives, in 1983 SAM established the Asia-Pacific People’s Environment Network (APPEN), which became the regional coordinator for the World Rainforest Network (WRN) formed at the end of FoE’s Penang conference.11 Now that international moves for regulating tropical timber exports had begun to impact on trade earnings, it was evidently in the best interest of government to conciliate the more radical campaigners at home. Officiating at FoE’s meeting in Penang, the Environment Minister, Stephen K.T. Yong, extended the hand of friendship to SAM, identifying a common interest in action for human welfare. I would like to urge SAM and other NGOs to come forward to co-operate with the Government so that together we can work towards ensuring a healthier environment, higher living standards and a better quality of life.12

The government’s rapprochement with the activists represented a brief moment of calm even as the storm clouds gathered.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 367 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

The Politics of Resource

•

367

In the late 1980s, the Prime Minister saw fit to address two contentious domestic issues relating directly to human welfare that, by provoking environmental activists, had touched on the raw nerve of domestic political sensitivities. The first concerned the operation of the Asian Rare Earth monazite ore-refining company established in 1982, at Bukit Merah near Ipoh, by Mitsubishi Kasei Corporation, a Japanese-Malaysian joint venture.13 Evidently no EIA had been conducted and, in a court case brought against the company, SAM set out to demonstrate that radioactive thorium waste from the processing plant, in excess of the limits set by the International Committee for Radiation Protection, had resulted in leukaemia among some local inhabitants. By the time the story broke internationally in 1991, Mitsubishi denied any liability on the grounds that it had ceased to be a major shareholder. The Japanese Foreign Ministry would take no responsibility either, arguing that it would not interfere in the domestic affairs of another country. To the embarrassment of the government, the exposure drew international attention and the intervention of a group of Japanese lawyers. The campaigners were among 106 citizens arrested in October 1987 under the Internal Security Act, in a nation-wide operation code-named ‘Operation Lalang’. It was aimed at stemming widening public dissent and political ferment, brought to a head by another environmental issue that had developed in parallel, in Sarawak.14 The displacement of indigenous communities in Sarawak, as a consequence of logging activities, triggered a long drawn-out confrontation between the Penan, in particular, and the logging companies. In March 1987, it culminated in a Penan blockade of logging roads in the upper Baram and Limbang, allegedly instigated by their fugitive Swiss sympathizer, Bruno Manser. Protesters, including some SAM members, were arrested and imprisoned for up to two years, or fined M$6,000 each, earning Malaysia a bad international press. 15 In addition, in October 1987, the Forest Ordinance of Sarawak was amended specifically to outlaw obstruction of forest roads.16 The government defended its stand on the Penan issue on the basis of the importance of timber and agricultural land, avowedly for poverty eradication and the improvement of lifestyles. This view, vigorously propagated by the Prime Minister, was conveyed in a personal letter to Manser who, following his expulsion by the Malaysian authorities from Sarawak, rallied support in Europe: Your Swiss ancestors were hunters also. But you are now one of the most ‘advanced’ people living in beautiful Alpine villages, with plenty of leisure and very high income … The Penans may tell you that their primitive life is what they like. That is because they are not given a chance to live a better life like the other tribes of Sarawak. Those of the Penans who have left the jungle are educated and … earning a better living have no wish to return to their primitive ways. You are trying to deny them their chance for a better life so that you can study primitive peoples the way you study animals … .17

KWells_book_4.fm Page 368 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

368

The Prime Minister’s words curiously echoed the tones of the colonial forester, Colin Marshall, equally intent on ‘civilizing’ forest dwellers, but with the opposite objective of forest preservation. The Aboriginal Department should aim at its own eventual disappearance and not keep these people primitive, worshipping jungle devils as an excuse for ethnographers. These are people, not animals! They must be given practical help to develop.18

As logging proceeded in Sarawak, WRN in Penang initiated a petition to the UN that carried some three million signatures, calling for emergency action to save the forests. Notwithstanding Prime Minister Mahathir’s attempts to rationalize deforestation in the interests of development, the Penan issue won wide sympathy in continental Europe19 It precipitated the anti-tropical timber movement with inevitable implications for the Peninsula’s timber trade. As part of the planned moratorium on unsustainably produced tropical hardwoods, there was a boycott against Malaysian exports, which by then made up some 70 per cent of tropical timber in the world market. The ban took a concrete form in 1989 when 200 city councils in Germany stopped using tropical timber.20 This, and boycotts in Austria and Belgium, registered success for those NGOs favouring direct action. Others pressed for an alternative strategy, seeking practical measures to promote sustainable harvesting. A New York City workshop on tropical timber did not view the proposed moratorium as a judicious measure. It concluded that a ban on tropical timber trade would only ‘send the wrong signals to tropical countries struggling to integrate conservation concerns into their development framework’.21 The UK government concurred, arguing that a European ban on tropical timber would effectively remove the incentive for managing forests sustainably for a competitive market.22 Although the United Nations Conference on Tropical Timber, convened in Geneva in 1983, represented primarily producers and consumers, the obligation to go beyond commercial concerns to recognize the social and environmental implications of timber production and marketing was acknowledged by the Tokyo-based ITTO. Thus, integral to the Tropical Forest Timber Agreement and Action Plan (TFTAAP) was ITTO’s role of mediating between consumers and producers with the aim, ideally, of coordinating the interests of forestry, government, trade and industry.23 ITTO adopted as its core philosophy the promotion of sustainability as a self-regulating mechanism, in preference to commodity regulation. In a WWFFoE report for ITTO, a team of tropical foresters headed by Duncan Poore supported the ideology of sustainability, though conceding that, ‘it is not yet possible to demonstrate conclusively that any natural forest anywhere has been successfully managed for the sustainable production of timber’.24 This reservation notwithstanding, ITTO hoped to set aside classical trade management tools such as quotas, buffer stocks and price intervention mechanisms, to encourage national policies aimed at ‘maintaining the ecological balance in the regions concerned’. 25

KWells_book_4.fm Page 369 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

The Politics of Resource

•

369

In a bid to vindicate Malaysia’s forest policy and counter the anti-logging campaign, Prime Minister Mahathir took advantage of ITTO’s influence and invited it to report on forest management in Sarawak. 26 The report by the Earl of Cranbrook and Duncan Poore, a biologist and a forester, respectively, was submitted in 1990 to the ITTO meeting in Bali. By persuading the Sarawak government to accept, in principle, the recommendations of the mission for better forest management, the Malaysian government hoped to stem international criticism of its forest policy.27 NGOs, however, criticized the Cranbrook Report as ‘narrow and timber focused’, neglecting both social issues and non-timber forest produce.28 Malaysia also made a determined effort to counter the anti-tropical timber campaign in Europe, to which end it formed the Malayan Timber Council (MTC). The organization launched a vehement protest, arguing that a ban on tropical timber would contravene the global commitment to poverty eradication and commit the developing world to bearing the entire burden of global environmental protection. The Foreign Minister, Abu Hassan, was quick to respond to World Bank and US Congressional criticism of Malaysia’s forest policy. He reiterated the Prime Minister’s stand that ‘the Government cannot possibly tell the people that they must remain in poverty in order that the rain forests be preserved for the benefit of the world’. There was obviously a need to balance the competing demands of preservation and exploitation and the nation had gone a long way, he claimed, towards achieving this balance.29 Malaysia adopted the argument, originally mooted by Emil Salim and later acknowledged by UNEP,30 that the developed countries should help developing countries preserve tropical forests as a global heritage. This viewpoint, which won over the local NGOs, marked a turning point in their relations with the government. Adopting a volte-face the government declared that the Southern (as opposed to the Northern) NGOs could play a valuable role in initiating or highlighting issues of public concern on the domestic front.31 At the Rio Summit, the Malaysian Permanent Representative to the UN, Tan Sri Razali Ismail, urged Malaysian NGOs to be more articulate and have regular dialogue with the government on environmental issues.32 The rapprochement between the government and the Malaysian NGOs helped offset the inability of external aid agencies to have any direct influence on Malaysia’s environmental policy.33 The views of Martin Khor, President of WRN, reflected the consensus between the Federal government and the nationally based NGOs on global environmental governance.34 These pertained to the negative implications of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) on the environment and the Third World, in particular.35 Khor saw a major stumbling block in the form of GATT’s potential rejection of any Third World restriction or ban on forest produce based on the free trade rather than the fair trade principle. It was tantamount, he argued, to removing the powers of Third World governments to regulate economic activity within sustainable limits.36 Given these circum-

KWells_book_4.fm Page 370 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

370

stances, he called for more positive measures for working out some kind of mechanism whereby the developed countries could compensate tropical countries for preserving their forests. Once this principle is accepted – as [with] the principle of compensating or funding the Third World for transfer of technology on reducing chlorofluorcarbons in the CFC protocol – we can work out a formula of compensation.37

Though ITTO had assumed the role of regulating producer–consumer relations as another means of arresting tropical deforestation, conflicts followed over who should bear greater responsibility for sustainable timber production. There were also fundamental doubts as to whether ITTO would be able to reconcile the seemingly conflicting roles of representing the interests both of producers and consumers.38 A potential impasse was avoided by popular support for ITTO’s initiative for reversing the prevailing trade position through timber labelling as a competitive market strategy. WWF, for one, considered acceptance of higher prices for certified hardwoods by consumers – principally Japan, the USA and the UK in the case of Malaysia – as the only viable means of making natural forest management pay.39 THE NOR T H–SO UT H DIV IDE

In pursuing his proactive stance on the issue of forest protection, Prime Minister Mahathir was drawn irrevocably into the global environmental dialogue on deforestation and poverty that had prompted the 1987 Brundtland Commission Report (see pp. 345–346). Turning the tables on his critics, he emphasizing two fundamental arguments. First, the responsibility of the developed countries to reduce resource consumption, waste and pollution that contributed to environmental degradation. Second, the obligation of the developed countries to help developing countries preserve their forests.40 At the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) hosted by Malaysia in October 1989, Mahathir successfully negotiated an agreement of principles for sustainable management in the ‘Langkawi Declaration’. Based on the precept that economic growth was central to development, the Declaration stated that environmental initiatives should not create economic barriers in the form of conditions on aid and development financing. Attention was drawn to the high-consumption lifestyles of the West. This, more than any other single factor, it was argued, contributed to environmental degradation, including the greenhouse effect, depletion of the ozone layer, climate change, acid rain, pollution, toxic waste, burning of fossil fuels and non-sustainable practices in agriculture, fishing and forestry.41 The Langkawai Declaration laid the cornerstone of Malaysia’s global environmental policy. In June 1990, addressing MNS on the occasion of its 50th anniversary, the Prime Minister again emphasized that it was the responsibility of the developed countries to bear the cost of tropical forest conservation.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 371 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

The Politics of Resource

•

371

Maintenance of global biodiversity is the common responsibility of everyone, as its benefits are universal and not limited to any one country or region. Developed countries with their advanced technological and scientific capability are in a better position to reap the benefits from the conservation of biodiversity. Thus this effort must be well supported by the wealthy developed countries without imposing restrictive burdens on the developing ones even though the habitat of the diverse species are now usually in the developing countries … . While we would not wish to destroy biodiversity, it must be remembered that preserving it imposes a massive cost on the already poor. A way must be found to preserve without bringing development in poor countries to a standstill.42

In April 1992, at a preparatory meeting of developing nations that Malaysia convened preceding UNCED’s Rio convention, Mahathir initiated a common policy stance for Group (G) 77, which was endorsed as ‘The Kuala Lumpur Declaration’.43 Next, anticipating external checks on Malaysia’s ambitious forestbased development agenda, the Prime Minister opposed FAO’s initiative for negotiating a treaty on the conservation and sustainable development of the world’s forests.44 His argument that such a treaty would interfere with a nation’s sovereign rights to exploit its forests in whatever way it wished had the unequivocal support of India. Sharing Malaysia’s criticism of the high level of greenhouse gas emissions from the industrialized Group (G) 7 countries, India was opposed to any international agreement that would effectively commit the South to preserving the still remaining tropical forests as a convenient carbon sink for the excessive carbon emissions of the North. At the UNCED meeting held at Rio de Janeiro in June 1992, Mahathir, in the perceived interests of developing nations, categorically rejected resolutions and agreements for trade and policy intervention under the proposed ‘Forest Principles’. The poor countries have been told to preserve their forests and other genetic resources on the off-chance that at some future date something is discovered which might prove useful to humanity … . Denying them their own resources will impoverish them and retard their Development.45

The management of forest capital as an exclusive sovereign right ran somewhat contrary to the spirit of the Brundtland Commission’s appeal for global cooperation for sustainable development within ‘a restructured international economic system’.46 Malaysia’s hostility, like that of India’s, towards a forest treaty played no small part in influencing the G77 bloc of developing nations in conceding only to a ‘Non-Legally Binding Authoritative Statement of [Forest] Principles’.47 At the same time, the Preamble to Agenda 21 settled for an acceptable compromise. Acknowledged was the basic right of states, in accordance with the UN Charter and international law, to exploit their own resources pursuant to national policies, so long as these did not damage the environment of other states. Thus, paragraph 8(d) read:

KWells_book_4.fm Page 372 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

372

Sustainable forest management and use should be carried out in accordance with national development policies and priorities and on the basis of environmentally sound national guidelines. In the formulation of such guidelines, account should be taken, as appropriate and if applicable, of relevant agreed methodologies and criteria.48

Furthermore, in accordance with the sovereign rights of states to biological resources including genetic material, Paragraph 8(g) relating to access was modified to allow for the sharing of technology and profits ‘on mutually agreed terms’. 49 The most contentious Paragraph, 15 (b), which dealt with international trade in sustainably managed forest resources, namely, through effective eco-labelling, was deleted. This, in particular, antagonized NGOs who condemned the ‘Forest Principles’ document. Dubbed the ‘Chain-Saw Charter’, it was considered tradebiased in its call for ‘non-discriminatory and multilaterally agreed rules’, discrediting unilateral trade bans. But arguably, within the rationale of the ‘Forest Principles’ drawn up in Rio, trade restrictions in the form of eco-labelling would have worked against the spirit of Paragraph 9, which sought to improve market access for forest products, especially processed produce. 50 The lobby for trade liberalization argued that, given a free market, people would be able to improve their living standards by the sustainable production of tree crops, abandoning shifting agriculture. Access to new markets for manufactured goods from the tropics, negotiated at the Uruguay Round Table Conference in 1989, offered the prospects of improved export earnings. It was believed that the resulting boost to incomes would significantly increase the affordability of agro-chemicals for crop production. Reflecting upon the implications of GATT for the future of tropical forests, J. Sayer concluded that, though the opening of new markets would make agrochemicals more affordable, agricultural intensification was double-edged.51 This was already evident in capital-intensive land development projects in Peninsular Malaysia. Conservationists noted that the success of chemically treated oil-palm plantations would merely perpetuate forest clearance for agriculture. 52 FE DER AL–STATE TENSIONS

Even as Mahathir vehemently defended the cause of third world development and poverty alleviation to counter international moves to curb tropical deforestation, the proliferation of politically influential timber barons and multi-national companies in the region undermined the credibility of such a claim. In the Peninsula, public sector land development, begun in the interests of eradicating poverty and landlessness, assumed a momentum of its own, placing unprecedented power in the hands of State authorities as concessionaires for the plantation and timber industries. During 1990 the annual allowable coupe for the Peninsula was exceeded by 43 per cent, including a 70 per cent excess in the PRFs logged. 53 State governments used concessions for land clearance and logging as a means of guaranteeing political loyalties and boosting revenues from the collection of

KWells_book_4.fm Page 373 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

The Politics of Resource

•

373

area-based premiums and royalties on log extraction.54 The economic stakes of a majority of the bumiputera population were entrenched in land development, which was thoroughly politicized. Grants and concessions of all description were based on political criteria, following election cycles. 55 Use of the State apparatus for accumulation of wealth and influence for political leverage at local and national level prejudiced forest management.56 The insecurity of political patronage, on which logging concessions rested, reinforced opportunist ‘mining’ inherent in the short-term tenure of licensing.57 The annual rate of deforestation in the Peninsula, at 2 per cent per annum during 1981–90, was almost double the ASEAN average of just over 1.08 per cent.58 In Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia, the problem of forest loss and degradation emanated largely from poverty and land shortage relative to population.59 In the Peninsula in contrast, with a much smaller population and a per capita GDP that more than doubled between 1970 and 1990, the problem was more the result of land conversion in excess of agricultural needs and weaknesses within the system of logging.60 Responding to the anticipated decline in timber stocks, the Fifth Malaysia Plan stipulated a reduction in the annual coupe by roughly a quarter over the period 1986–90.61 The policy backfired and exacerbated illegal logging and over-cutting, exceeding the approved diameter size and the limits of the licensed coupes. The speed with which these stealthy operations were conducted invariably damaged residual trees. 62 A 40 per cent rise in production during 1985–89 (see Appendix 2) suggested ‘extra-legal felling’ and higher levels of extraction per ha to compensate for the reduced area approved for logging. Drawing attention to the problem of irresponsible harvesting and illegal logging the New Straits Times commented that ‘even as the country steps up efforts to polish up a tarnished image overseas … [i]llegal logging and footdragging by States authorities are two maladies requiring immediate and effective action’.63 As in the pre-war period, illegal extraction was particularly serious along the jungle-fringed inter-State borders where timber was taken out of the normal flow of trade goods. The number of cases of illegal logging and compounded fines collected rose phenomenally between 1990 and 1991 (Figure 3 below). In 1992, a decline was registered largely because those States where the activity was acute had sought a partial solution to the problem by retrospective licensing. A seven-member World Bank mission that conducted a forest sector survey of the various States concluded that Malaysia was logging four times beyond the sustainable level. Identified as the main institutional problem was the system of short-term logging concessions, encouraging the careless extraction of commercially valuable timber trees, damaging to residual stands. 64 In Terengganu, the Chief Minister declared that the State had no intention of reducing logging, which he insisted, was strictly within the quota set by the National Forestry Council. In fact, he made a case, by way of a curious logic, for extending logging: ‘Since timber is rampantly stolen from the border areas we

KWells_book_4.fm Page 374 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation No. of cases 1200

•

374 Fines M$ (million) 12

1000

10

800

8

600

6

400

4

200

2

0

0 1990

1991 Number of cases

1992 Fines in M$ (million)

Figure 3: Number of cases of illegal logging and total fines collected, Peninsular Malaysia, 1990–92. Source: New Straits Times, 29 Jan. 1993

might as well start logging there before all the trees eventually go to the timber thieves.’65 Accordingly, licences were issued for extraction on the Kelantan border. In April 1991, concessions covering a total of 8,100 ha were given to 20 sawmillers.66 Pahang did likewise, leasing 40,000 ha of logging concessions along State borders adjoining Kelantan and Terengganu.67 The compensatory planting and regeneration programmes could not keep pace with widespread forest degradation. The World Bank observed that sustainable forest management existed only on paper.68 The management of PRFs was defective and plans to set up plantations were regarded as ‘illusionary hopes’. In the wood-processing sector, reduction in log prices for domestic processing and other incentives had contributed to overcapacity in primary processing, with little incentive for upgrading technology to reduce the increasing problem of waste and pollution.69 The Federal government’s eagerness at this stage to clean the Augean stables stemmed from anxiety to curb State power, derived from timber-based money politics. Its acceptance of an external review by the World Bank reflected its genuine desire for fundamental reform in the forest sector, not only to gain international credibility but also to exercise some measure of leverage over State affairs. In January 1993 the Cabinet issued a directive to the Ministry of Primary Industries to wage an all-out war against

KWells_book_4.fm Page 375 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

The Politics of Resource

•

375

illegal logging and the Prime Minister instructed the Solicitor-General to investigate weaknesses in the laws pertaining to logging concessions. 70 The involvement of Sultans in the timber business – tantamount to a reassertion of their traditional claims on forest resources – was a major factor that contributed to Federal-State tensions. In Pahang, where some of the most extensive forests in the Peninsula still remained, forest exploitation facilitated by personal and political influence continued unabated. As with the Endau-Rompin issue, Pahang’s determination to exercise the full measure of State power in defiance of national policy sparked new State-Federal conflicts. The Federal government’s dilemma over reconciling modern codes of governance with the mores of Malay sovereignty and politics was manifested at the November 1991 UMNO General Assembly. Grave concerns were aired over the business participation of the royalty who took advantage of a buoyant economy to own banks, insurance firms and shares in listed companies,71 with venture capital derived largely from the lucrative timber business. The participation of the Pahang royalty in the State’s timber boom was blatant. In 1992 the State produced 5.1 million cu m out of 13 million cu m from the whole Peninsula.72 With some 200 owners operating legally and illegally, it held the country’s largest concentration of sawmills. 73 Allegedly, between 1988 and 1992, the Pahang State government, under pressure from the Istana (Palace) at Pekan, assigned logging concessions amounting to over 37,223 ha to the Sultan and 7,500 ha to the Tengku Mahkota (Crown Prince).74 In a political culture where direct challenge to the influence and power of the Sultan could amount to lese-majesty, the alleged legal liberties taken by the ruler’s 31-year-old business partner, Wong Yeon Chai, provided an opportunity for reviewing royal prerogatives and patronage. Wong was the son of an influential Pahang millionaire, Wong Tuck Kong, who had made his fortune from building rural roads for the former National and Rural Development Ministry. Conferred the title of Darja Indera Mahkota by the Sultan at the early age of 29, the younger Wong allegedly evaded payment of import duties on the luxury cars he bought, drawing on the influence of his royal patron. He is also alleged to have acquired logging contracts, totalling M$140 million, on concessions given to the Pahang royal family and was accused of using his influence with the Sultan to flout forest regulations. Zealous Forest Officers who refused to turn a blind eye to illegal felling were allegedly intimidated by Wong. An officer who detained Wong’s lorries for violating forest regulations was swiftly transferred to another State. A similar effort at enforcing forest rules precipitated a clash between Wong and a Forest Ranger over the detention of 30 lorries accused of carrying illegal logs from the Lintang Forest Reserve.75 When matters were brought into the open, the Minister of Primary Industries, Lim Keng Yaik, accused Wong in unequivocal terms of engaging in illegal logging in the name of the palace.76 The Ruler’s apparently bland reaction was: ‘I am only a Sultan … in front of my eyes he is fine but who knows what he is doing behind my back.’77

KWells_book_4.fm Page 376 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

376

The Wong issue brought to a head the question of royal powers and prerogatives, which had earlier come under scrutiny in 1983.78 Allegations of the palace’s manipulation of logging concessions created growing resentment and frustration among UMNO’s new Malay business elite over the unfair advantage enjoyed by the royalty.79 At State level, some members of the Pahang State Legislature sought clarification of the procedure for logging concessions but failed to elicit a satisfactory response from the Chief Minister.80 Thus, the Prime Minister pressed for a review of the legal immunity of the Sultans. 81 The result was the Constitutional Amendment Bill of 1993, aimed at removing the personal immunity of the rulers and withdrawing all perks and privileges not provided under the law.82 As the constitutional amendment in itself failed to address royal claims to land and timber concessions, in 1993 the National Forestry Council tightened the guidelines for issuing logging licences, including specific conditions governing applications for concessions by the royalty. All the same, the Federal government lacked the means of enforcing the new guidelines. The vested interests of the royalty, administrators and politicians, whether in private or State-sponsored business, boded ill for forest and environmental management. The problem was compounded by the rentier tradition where the Malay elite contracted business to disadvantaged Chinese. This, apart from retarding the growth of Malay business acumen, perpetuated invidious business patronage. By 1989, apart from one licence issued to a Chinese, the remaining 70 licences were held by bumiputera, out of which 45 operated with Chinese contractors.83 Furthermore, though wise management of forest resources dictated stringent observance of laws and regulations, there was little incentive for compliance under a system of virtual monopoly such as that held by Amanah Saham Pahang (ASPA). A common complaint was the lack of long-term interest among concessionaires in the licensed areas. The objective of maximizing returns within the tenure of a short lease encouraged evasion of logging regulations. State corporations owning logging companies were alleged to be often the worst offenders. A case in point was ASPA, one of the world’s largest timber concessionaires, which established an integrated timber complex for promoting bumiputera enterprise. Under the Deputy Chief Minister as Chairman and with senior managerial positions held by UMNO members and supporters, the Company suffered inefficiency and incompetence.84 The Pahang Public Accounts Company disclosed that during the first half of 1991, out of 57 logging offences recorded in Rompin district alone, 51 were by ASPA. A compound fine paid by the corporation covered a variety of offences including logging outside concession areas, harvesting before the minimum 30-year regeneration cycle, destruction of young trees in the process of logging and working without proper permits.85 A New Straits Times editorial in 1994 compared the scramble for logging concessions in Pahang to the Californian Gold Rush: ‘Everybody who was somebody lined up for a timber concession –

KWells_book_4.fm Page 377 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

The Politics of Resource

•

377

a sure bet to be rich.’ Scandalized by the affair, the same editorial openly admonished ASPA: A State-owned entity should have a higher sense of social responsibility than the private operators. One has the right to be outraged when that reasonable expectation is found to be misplaced and the company turns out to be a major culprit.86

Although the Pahang State Forestry Department pledged to step up law enforcement, it remained powerless against the illegal practices of State-owned or State-backed companies.87 Since it was ‘normal practice’ for the concessionaire to leave the logging work to the contractor, the concessionaire was not the actual offender – so the argument went – and should not receive all the blame. 88 Generally, logging concessions vastly exceeded the annual quota set by the NFC for each State.89 Any commitment on the part of the Federal government to improve its international image lacked support from individual States. As the Minister of Primary Industries pointed out: We have to show we have a creditable forest management policy when we counter negative campaigns against our timber products … . When our people, especially at the State level are not doing what is right, then it is very difficult to explain the forest policy … . 90

One of the aims of the 1993 Amendment to the NFA was to curb illegal logging. Under it, illegal felling became the joint liability of concessionaires and logging contractor. The maximum fine of M$10,000 and/or a three-year jail sentence previously imposed was replaced by a maximum M$500,000 fine and a mandatory jail term of 1–20 years.91 Offenders were also liable to pay ten times the royalty, premium and cess on the timber cut, double the rate imposed previously. Significantly, the Amendment provided for the armed forces, in addition to the police force authorized by the original Act, to undertake any duty assigned by the State Director of Forestry, apart from that of investigation.92 The Pahang State Assembly’s approval of the Amendment and its pledge to provide five surveillance helicopters strengthened the arm of the State Forestry Department in countering illegal logging. 93 However, legislation and greater vigilance were not entirely effective. Enforcement of forest laws in compliance with judicial procedures proved difficult in some instances. In the prosecution of illegal loggers, for example, the Forest Department cited the problem of transporting heavy logs as exhibits to court!94 On the administrative side, the entrenchment of politics in the timber industry exacerbated weaknesses in the forest service. Staff shortage and poor salaries and incentives bred irregularity, inefficiency and corruption. The wide variety of alleged and suspected malpractices included irregular timber concessions, unlicensed timber cutting and the manipulation of the boundaries of working areas by uniformed forest staff, acting on behalf of contractors. Particularly open to corruption was the system of licensing logging, over which

KWells_book_4.fm Page 378 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

378

the central government had little control. The difficulty of coping impartially with the flood of applications for licences resulted in the introduction of a tender system in some States, which was flawed in two respects. First, it was not uncommon for failed applicants to put pressure on the State Forest Department by appealing to the State Executive Committee. Second, the person able to make the highest bid – despite offering the best profits for the State – was not necessarily the ideal choice for enforcing sustainable logging practices. 95 In fact, as early as 1962 the prevalence of irregularities among forest staff was addressed by Abdul Aziz Ishak, the Minister in charge of forestry, in the context of a case of alleged graft in Pahang.96 A confidential investigation resulted in the admission by Pahang DFOs of malpractices attributed to unscrupulous contractors bribing poorly paid staff for conniving in forest offences involving large sums of money. Even though culprits were brought to book from time to time, violations had continued. The fines payable were small in comparison with the profits accrued and there was no provision for impounding the licences of persistent offenders.97 It emerged that, at the main centres of the timber industry in Kuantan and Rompin, collusion between contractors and some forest staff was so deep-rooted that previous efforts by the DFO, E.C. Foenander, to eradicate corruption had been subjected to ridicule. 98 Abdul Aziz followed up his promise to eradicate such practices with a frank and open reprimand of forest staff at a conference of senior officers. The issue caused a furore as it exposed deficiencies in the1959 anti-corruption campaign launched by Abdul Aziz Abdul Majid, Permanent Secretary in the Prime Minister’s Department. The Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) and the Crimes Investigation Department (CID) had been created for ‘inculcating consciousness of the great evil of corruption among public servants as well as members of the public’. 99 Thus, to save embarrassment to the government, Abdul Aziz Ishak was urged to withdraw his public statement. This he refused to do, reiterating the principle that forest officers were expected to adopt impeccable standards of integrity in discharging their duties.100 During the decades that followed, the little achieved in the way of reforming, training and expanding the forest service and improving staff incentives accounted, in part, for shortfalls in professional ethics. Even as the timber industry expanded, the forest service proved unable to cope with the range of duties including marking out areas for logging in accordance with the management prescription, supervision of logging particularly in erosion-prone steep terrain, and enforcement of specifications regarding logging roads. 101 Poor control of timber movement and the consequent misuse of removal passes were widespread and represented a substantial loss of royalty to States. Companies often used a single removal pass to transport more than one lorry load. It was also not unknown for Rangers to put the stamp of approval on logs without proper documentation.102 In Pahang, forestry officers accused by the ACA of aiding and abetting illegal logging could not be taken to court for the lack of

KWells_book_4.fm Page 379 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

The Politics of Resource

•

379

evidence. A further problem was the failure of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1961 to address the full range of abuses.103 The only option under these circumstances was for the State Forestry Department to take disciplinary measures into its own hands. It placed an enormous burden of responsibility on the departmental head, whose scope for action was limited by administrative and budgetary constraints. In Kelantan, over-logging by contractors by as much as 300 per cent during 1991 suggested the connivance of forest staff with contractors104 and their involvement in other malpractices. In one instance, illegal logs from the Perias Forest Reserve (near Gua Musang), seized and stamped for auctioning, were discovered to have been re-sealed with a tax stamp, a procedure that could only have been conducted at a Forestry Department checkpoint. In another instance, illegal logging in Taman Negara over an 18-month period and covering a 1,000ha primary forest resulted in the felling of trees believed to be over 200 years old. The arrest of five Forestry Department staff, along with a National Park employee, disclosed their collusion with members of the public in activities that betrayed what the press termed ‘greed, fraud, corruption and irresponsibility’. 105 Little wonder that the Director-General of Forestry envisaged integrating motivational courses and religious instruction within forestry training programmes to ensure that staff members were ‘physically, mentally and morally equipped to discharge their duties effectively’. This, as well as improved salaries and other financial incentives, were considered essential for greater efficiency and eradication of graft within the service.106 The Special Branch and armed forces were co-opted under a provision of the amended 1993 NFA for curbing illegal logging, only to find that they had neither the skills nor the powers for forest law enforcement. The degree of coordination and cooperation needed between forest officers, the police and the army to root out malpractices was difficult to achieve under the Malaysian federal structure. The Inspector-General of Police pointed out the problems police faced in understanding forestry policies and procedures and their lack of authority to check if loggers had the necessary documentation.107 As forestry came under the purview of individual States, the Defence Minister was unable to act on Federal authority, which put the onus on individual States to enlist the services of the armed forces and the police.108 Additional new skills such as forensic science, in which the police had little training, were found to be crucial for dealing effectively with illegal logging.109 In the main, the provision by the National Forestry Council for more stringent regulations governing the issue of logging licences and public reproof put some curbs on logging excesses in Pahang. The Chief Minister claimed that the stiffer penalties introduced by the newly amended NFA and the system of tagging trees for logging had helped reduce illegal felling.110 These regulatory measures, combined with a history of over-logging, reduced the State’s subsequent timber output from 5.1 million cu m in 1992 to 3.6 million cu m the

KWells_book_4.fm Page 380 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

380

following year. This meant a corresponding fall in the gross national output from 13 million cu m to 11 million cu m (see Appendix 2), offset by increased rent capture. Thereafter, Pahang’s productivity decreased gradually, to 3 million cu m in 1996, contributing to the overall decline in Peninsular output. 111 Whereas most State governments under Barisan (Alliance) rule112 attempted some measure of reform in the forest sector, it was less easy to bring the opposition PAS-dominated Kelantan State to heel. Kelantan’s log production, which reached 2.9 million cu m in 1990, dropped subsequently to 2 million cu m but soon recovered. By 1995 the State’s production totalled 3.3 million cu m, making up for Pahang’s decreased output.113 As in Pahang, the buoyancy of Kelantan’s timber industry was associated with similar allegations of political nepotism and the less publicized land shortage among the peasantry. In 1995, Kelantan admitted that, as of 1993, over 48,000 ha of its forest, including 42,000 ha of PFEs, had been encroached on, about half for agricultural conversion. The pressure for land was such that 1–2 ha plots of illegally cleared land were sold by syndicates at M $5,000 each.114 Furthermore, in 1994 there were reports of indiscriminate clearing in the environmentally sensitive primary forests of the Lojing Highlands on the upper Galas River. Here the PAS Government was alleged to have given 18 logging licences for clearing some 3,300 ha, slated for resort and agricultural development. The main players involved in the project were the State Economic Development Corporation, YAKIN (Yayasan Kelantan Darulnaim) and the Kemubu Agricultural Development Authority (KADA).115 The Deputy Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim, criticized the ‘greed and avarice’ of politicians and their failure to keep campaign promises,116 while the Minister of Primary Industries accused Kelantan of failing to keep its promise to adhere to the quota set by the National Forestry Council. The Kelantan government, which blamed shortfalls in Federal funding for its recourse to over-logging, was curtly reminded that ‘This is what happens when a [S]tate government has not forged [a] close relationship with the Federal government.’117 The overstretched Kelantan government was quick to point out that many of the development projects in progress were, in fact, actually approved and implemented by the previous UMNO-led State government. It further denied the Department of Environment’s (DOE’s) charge that EIA regulations and the Land Conservation Act had been flouted in Lojing.118 Against the background of acrimonious exchanges, erosion from highland development took its toll. Kelantan and Pahang blamed each other for erosion problems in the contiguous Lojing and Cameron Highlands, with neither party prepared to exercise restraint. 119 Over-logging and land conversion soon caught up with Kelantan’s timber output. A fall in production by 1.3 million cu m between 1994 and 1995 contributed to a sharp fall in the Peninsula’s total output (see Appendix 2).120 The Federal government’s crackdown on Pahang and Kelantan demonstrated the gravity of the situation. Too much was at stake in terms of losing market credibility. That sustainability was more than an article of faith became clear as

KWells_book_4.fm Page 381 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

The Politics of Resource

•

381

log production took a sharp downturn in the 1990s.121 The shortage of logs for servicing downstream industries reflected the drop in illegal logging from 810 cases in 1991 to just 41 in 1994, and a reduction in extraction by 20 per cent below the recommended annual quota of 46,000 ha.122 These were clear symptoms of an irreversible trend in the decline in forest capital, offset by imports from Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia and New Guinea.123 TR ADE LIBER ALIZATION AND SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION

Forest capital was one of two fundamental factors that determined the level of productivity. The other was the international market. Favourable prices during the early 1970s had stimulated timber output. It continued to grow in the face of the subsequent price decline and the need for the industry to stay afloat. 124 During the period 1982–84, the Peninsula produced around 10 million cu m of timber annually, about as much each as Sarawak and Sabah.125 Following a short decline thereafter, production rapidly picked up, reaching 13.1 million cu m in 1988 and then fell away steadily, with an abrupt drop from 11.4 million cu m in 1994 to 9 million cu m in 1995.126 Apart from an average decrease in yield from 71 cu m/ha to 53. 7 cu m/ha in re-logged areas, the fall in production reflected a decrease in the world output of tropical logs.127 As predicted, production dropped more sharply after 1994, as land conversion programmes drew to a close. The annual production was expected to level off during 1995–2010 at 4.8 million cu m on average128 but remained well above this until 1997, suggesting over-cutting and shorter harvesting cycles. Only as of 1998 did harvesting levels stabilize at just over 5 million cu m (see Appendix 2). In contrast to the fall in log production, Malaysia’s wood industry, concentrated largely in the Peninsula, experienced a boom. Helped by its reputation as a reliable and prompt supplier, Malaysia was a major producer of sawn timber with just under 1,100 sawmills in 1991 – almost three times the number in Indonesia.129 By 1994 the number of sawmills in operation decreased by almost half, to 572. This was a direct consequence of the indefinite freeze on new licences, aimed at terminating sawn timber exports by the year 2000, to promote the domestic wood-based industries.130 The policy was a considered response to declining log output, and international pressure for stricter management standards.131 Thus, exports of sawn wood, which had risen significantly, from 2.7 million cu m in 1980 to 4.1 million cu m in 1990, decreased subsequently and remained around 3 million cu m until 2000.132 By 1995, the decline in sawn wood exports saw a corresponding rise in plywood exports, which rose to 4.3 million cu m – over three times the output in 1991. Peninsular Malaysia occupied an even more important place in veneer production. In 1994 it exported more than 700,000 cu m out of the total of 1.1 million cu m from ITTO producers. 133 Although Agenda 21 had not incorporated the full range of UNCED objectives, the general consensus on forest protection as a desirable objective encouraged pursuance of unresolved issues through group negotiations outside

KWells_book_4.fm Page 382 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

382

the UN forum.134 Within this framework of flexibility, following Germany’s lead in using the trade mechanism to protect tropical forests, Austria proposed a legislation requiring the labelling of all tropical timber imported. Potentially this would have widened the North–South divide and was sufficiently contentious to be withdrawn in the face of protest from Malaysia and ASEAN.135 Instead, a more constructive strategy was pursued by conservation groups and the forest sector for drawing up realistic guidelines to implement UNCED’s ‘Forest Principles’. 136 The memorandum of the Global Forestry Conference, ‘Beyond UNCED’, held in February 1993 in Bandung, succinctly summed up the message that the Rio summit had brought home: The forest issue is socially, economically and geopolitically complex and is closely tied with economic development, international trade and environmental issues.137

The trade position of tropical wood producers discussed at the Bandung Conference was crucially important for Malaysia as the largest producer of tropical timber. Oeken Abdoellah and Otto Soemarwoto of the Department of Ecology, Pajajaran University, drew attention to policies discriminating against tropical timber. They pointed out that in terms of production of round wood per capita, the largest exporters were Finland, Canada and Sweden, with Malaysia occupying only fourth place. Moreover, though temperate forests comprised about 50 per cent of the global forests, against only 30 per cent tropical forests, there were no international guidelines for temperate forest utilization comparable to those drawn up by TFAP for tropical forests.138 Cognizant of dissatisfaction within ASEAN, the Conference was anxious to close a growing North–South rift and drew up the ‘The Bandung Initiative on Forestry’. It called for global cooperation in integrating forest conservation with economic, trade and other relevant policies by building environmental costs and benefits into the price mechanism. The framework of cooperation advocated ruled out unilateral measures banning or restricting trade in forest products in contravention of international agreements and obligations.139 In March 1992 the creation of a Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), operating as a non-profit organization, had been proposed to encourage good forest management worldwide.140 Efforts to bring temperate-zone producers under the same scrutiny as those of tropical hardwoods gained strong backing at the 14th Inter-Tropical Timber Council meeting of May 1993 in Kuala Lumpur. WWF called on US representatives at the session to forge a consensus on global timber agreement to include all forests – a view shared by the US VicePresident, Al Gore, who supported the work of ITTO.141 However, temperate zone wood producers who were anxious to avoid the kind of international scrutiny prescribed for tropical countries were reassured by general scepticism over ITTO’s ability to accommodate the inherently different problems pertaining to temperate zone forests.142 At the same meeting, Edward Barbier, Director of the London Environmental Economics Centre, averred that trade interventions

KWells_book_4.fm Page 383 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

The Politics of Resource

•

383

in the form of bans and taxes aimed at saving the tropical rain forest would not be productive in the long term. They were likely to reduce rather than increase incentives for sustainable development, leading to disguised protectionism or conversion of forests to other uses. Neither export quotas nor taxes on endangered tropical timber – which could be perceived as discriminatory – were realistic options. Alternatively, the concept of an internationally agreed certification scheme was recognized as a ‘necessary complement’ to trade policy options, compatible with ‘country certification’ rather than ‘produce labelling’ or ‘concession certification’.143 By 1994, setting aside its earlier retaliatory threat to boycott Austrian goods, Malaysia made a radical and pragmatic shift in policy towards ‘conformity’. 144 Its acceptance of sustainable forest management as a fundamental principle, and endorsement of timber certification, was market driven.145 By the end of 1994, Malaysian timber and wood products had suffered an alarming decline in the markets of the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium, with about 40 per cent of the Dutch and 50 per cent of the German market shares lost. 146 As the Malaysian press noted: Eco-labelling used to be a dirty word in the dictionary of the Malaysian timber industry. It was deemed synonymous with unfair, unilateral and discriminating impositions by the West. But now with a less militant sounding phrase like ‘timber certification scheme’, Malaysia is ready to pursue fully its aim to be accredited as a nation with sustainably managed forests by 2000.147

In 1992, ITTO had set ‘Guidelines and Criteria for the Measurement of Tropical Forest Management.’ In response, Malaysian timber exporters – usually vociferous opponents of environmental trade barriers – pressed for the mechanism for timber certification to be accepted and its implementation expedited to meet the target date of 2000 set by ITTO. They saw this as the only means of saving their huge export trade with the EU, second only to that with Japan. 148 A Malaysian timber exporter, on first entering the European market, is said to have been ‘stumped’ when asked if his products were certified. The Timber Exporters Association of Malaysia (TEAM) saw that although there were grounds for insisting on timber labelling for temperate wood, Malaysia itself should lose no time in implementing the scheme. To wait while policy makers engaged in polemics would only provide competitors, like Indonesia, the opportunity to move ahead in the global timber market. ‘Malaysia might win the environmental war in the long term, but by then we would have lost the battle in terms of market share,’ argued the President of TEAM.149 The association saw timber certification as an essential marketing strategy: We are dealing with a special product, a special market and a unique problem. If the consumers and the users want certification, we have no choice but to give them exactly what they want. To stay closely in the business we should work closely with the private sector in the EU.150

KWells_book_4.fm Page 384 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

384

A National Committee on Sustainable Management was formed in 1994 under the criteria set by ITTO.151 It was designed to develop national standards and codes of practice in line with FSC principles and to counter resistance to scrutiny and criticism.152 The Malaysian Timber Industry Board undertook to issue the required certification and a pro tem committee was formed in April 1994 to set up a National Timber Certification Council (NTCC), which came into existence in October 1998.153 Considered an integral feature of the nation’s effort to ensure sustainable management, the Council represented a cross-section of the timber industry; research organizations, including the universities; and NGOs, specifically WWFM and MNS, that had the government’s confidence. The estimated M$1.27 billion needed to implement the project was to be funded mainly by MTIB levies154 and State government benefits from premium, royalty and cess payments. While ITTO formulated the certification programme, it was proposed that the task of accrediting certifiers such as the NTCC would be assumed by the FSC, based in Oaxaca, Mexico.155 ITTO’s seemingly conflicting roles of protecting both forests and trade have been viewed with scepticism. 156 Sustainability in the broader sense of maintaining biodiversity and the ecological goods and services of forests is not generally understood to be within ITTO’s brief. But this does not preclude its obligation to promote optimum protection of ecosystems through setting guidelines for eco-labelling, and insist on stringent conditions for forest management and harvesting.157 The lack of significant change in the behaviour of producer countries and the industry as a whole, however, earned ITTO criticism of loopholes in its guidelines, allowing for unsustainable practices. It was also felt that ITTO should be better utilized by consumer countries to bring pressure to bear on producer countries for improved management.158 The global rain forest movement and domestic NGO initiatives prepared Malaysia’s road to Rio. The Prime Minister’s fierce rebuttal of international criticism of the country’s environmental policy was supported by efforts at reform, if only to protect the timber industry and bring recalcitrant States to heel. Malaysia played a lead role in the enunciation at Rio of a non-binding ‘Statement of Forest Principles’. This enshrined the tacit understanding that protecting the environment as a global heritage rested upon enforcement of a collective will, rather than coercive legislation. NOTES 1 2 3 4 5

Brundtland, Our Common Future, p. 9. Myers, The Sinking Ark. Emil Salim, ‘The politics of genetics’, Indonesia Circle, 31 (1983) pp. 17–22. See especially M.E.D. Poore and J. Sayer, The Management of Tropical Moist Forest Lands: Ecological Guidelines for Development in Tropical Rain Forests, Morges, Switzerland: IUCN, 1987. For a summary, see Myers, ‘Tropical deforestation and climatic change’, pp. 295–296; R. Hayes, ‘Tropical rain forest deforestation in Central America – The hamburger connection’,

KWells_book_4.fm Page 385 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

The Politics of Resource

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24

25 26

27 28

29 30 31

32

•

385

Proceedings of the Conference on ‘Forest Resources Crisis in the Third World’, 6–8 Sept. 1986, Penang: Sahabat Alam Malaysia, Penang, 1987, p. 379. Pearce, Green Warriors, pp. 182–183. ‘Declaration of the Conference’, in Proceedings…‘Forest Resources Crisis’, p. 471. S.M. Mohd Idris, ‘Opening Address’, Proceedings…‘Forest Resources Crisis’, p. 5. Pearce, Green Warriors, p. 184. C. Secrett, ‘Friends of the Earth UK and the hardwood campaign’, in Proceedings… ‘Forest Resources Crisis, pp. 348–352. V.C. Mohan and Chee Yoke Ling, ‘The Asia-Pacific People’s Environment Network (APPEN) as a People’s movement for social change’, in Proceedings …‘Forest Resources Crisis’, pp. 456– 469; ‘Declaration of the Conference’, Proceedings … ‘Forest Resources Crisis’, p. 473. Stephen K.T. Yong, ‘Opening Address’, Proceedings…‘Forest Resources Crisis’, p. 9. Mitsubishi had apparently run the same operation in Japan. In 1972, when the scandal broke concerning mercury poisoning and the subsequent public furore over hazardous waste, it promptly shifted its operations to the Peninsula. Pearce, Green Warriors, pp. 178–179. O. Cameron, ‘Japan and South-East Asia’s environment’, in Parnwell and Bryant (eds), Environmental Change in South-East Asia, pp. 78. For more on the Penan see Hurst, Rainforest Politics, pp. 115–120. Hurst, Rainforest Politics, pp. 116–120; Aiken and Leigh, Vanishing Rain Forests, pp. 124–125. Mahathir Mohamad, 31 March 1992, quoted in Far Eastern Economic Review, 27 Aug. 1992, pp. 8–9. C. Marshall, Conservator of Forests to State Secretary, Johor, 12 July 1958, DF 787/54. For an account of the campaign see J.P. Brosius, ‘Green dots, pink hearts: Displacing politics from the Malaysian rain forest’, American Anthropologist, 101, i (1999) pp. 38–42. European Rainforest Movement, ‘European rainforest campaigners unite’, Third World Resurgence, 9 (1991), republished in WRFM, The Endangered Rainforests: The Fight for Survival, Penang: World Rainforest Movement, 1992, vol. II, p. 905; Brosius, ‘Green dots, pink hearts’, p. 44 Pearce, Green Warriors, pp. 185–187. House of Lords, Select Committee of the European Communities on Tropical Forests, London: HMSO, 1990, p. 24. Caldwell, International Environmental Policy, p. 291; Hurst, Rainforest Politics, pp. 267–268. According to Poore, sustainable management can only be demonstrated conclusively after a forest enters at least its third rotation retaining a full structure, intact soil and ground flora, and is fully stocked with commercial species. ‘Conclusions’, in M.E.D. Poore, P. F. Burgess, J. R. Palmer, S. Rietbergen, and T.J. Synott, No Timber Without Trees: Sustainability in the Tropical Forest, London: Earthscan, 1989, p. 191. Collins et al., The Conservation Atlas, pp. 54–55. According to Fred Gale, the idea was actually mooted by ITTO’s Executive Director, Freezailah Che Yeom. For an analysis of the Commission’s recommendations see F. Gale, ‘The ITTO Mission to Sarawak’, in The Tropical Timber Trade Regime, London: Macmillan, 1998, pp. 178–203. Aiken and Leigh, Vanishing Rain Forests, pp. 125–126. F. Gale, ‘The mysterious case of the disappearing environmentalists: The International Tropical Timber Organization’, Capitalism, Nature and Socialism, 7, iii (1996) pp. 113–116. For a fairer appraisal than that of F. Gale of the Cranbrook Report, see Fadzilah Majid Cooke, The Challenge of Sustainable Forests, pp. 91–94. NST, 16 Dec. 1988, reproduced in Malaysian Naturalist, 42, ii & iii (1989) pp. 52–53. Emil Salim, ‘Conservation and development’, Indonesia Circle, 8 (1982) pp. 3–8; R. Cribb, The Politics of Environmental Protection in Indonesia, Working Paper No. 48, Clayton: Centre of Southeast Asian Studies, Monash University, 1988, pp. 24–25. This official stance was summed up in a three-part article on rain forest politics by K.K. Tan, a former executive of the Malaysian Timber Industry Board. See Tan, ‘West must pay the ecological price’, NST, 1 July 1994; ‘Aid and positive discrimination needed’, NST, 2 July 1994; ‘Politics behind eco-labelling’, NST, 3 July 1994. ‘Razali: NGOs should support Government’, NST, 8 Sept. 1992.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 386 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

386

33 Unlike Indonesia, for example, development projects affecting Malaysian forests were financed largely internally or by opaque bilateral funding arrangements, involving mainly Japan, leaving the government immune to leverage from aid agencies. B. Eccleston and D. Potter, ‘Environmental NGOs and different political contexts in South-East Asia: Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam’, in Parnwell and Bryant (eds), Environmental Change in Southeast Asia, p. 66. 34 Martin Khor was also President of Third World Network, (a coalition of more than 200 NGOs), Research Director of the Consumer Association, Penang (CAP), and Vice-President of FoE. 35 GATT was established in 1947 through the UN, with the ultimate objective of promoting free trade without tariff barriers. 36 M. Khor, ‘Fighting to save the rain forests and the world environment’, Interview by Jane Ayers in Los Angeles Times, n.d., reprinted in WRFM, The Endangered Rainforests: The Fight for Survival, vol. I, 1992, pp. 78–79. 37 Khor, ‘Fighting to save the rain forests and the world environment’, p. 80. 38 M. Scott, ‘Unequal to the task’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 12 Jan. 1989, p. 38. 39 WWF Press Release, 19 Oct. 1987, 41, ii (1987). 40 For Mahathir’s core arguments, see ‘Statement by His Excellency Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Prime Minister of Malaysia at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 13 June 1992, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil’, Prime Minister’s Office, Kuala Lumpur. 41 ‘The Langkawi Declaration issued by the Commonwealth Heads of Government’, 21 Oct. 1989. 42 ‘Speech by the Right Honorable Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad’, in Yap Son Kheong and Lee Su Win (eds), In Harmony with Nature, Proceedings of the International Conference on Conservation of Tropical Biodiversity, 12–16 June 1990, Kuala Lumpur: The Malayan Nature Society, 1992, pp. 1–2. 43 P. England, ‘National agendas in Malaysia and Thailand before and after the adoption of the Authoritative Statement of Forest Principles at Rio.’ Paper presented at the Asian Studies Association Australia Biennial Conference, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia, 13–16 July, 1994, n.p. 44 This proposal was broached in May 1990 by O. Ullensten as Chairman of the Committee for reviewing FAO’s TFAP. Reluctance on the part of the USA and the UK in allowing FAO to head such a plan led to its integration within the UNCED framework. S.P. Johnson (intro. and commentary), The Earth Summit: The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), London: Graham & Trotman/ Martinus Nijhoff, 1993, p. 103. 45 ‘Statement by His Excellency Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Prime Minister of Malaysia at … Rio de Janeiro’. 46 Brundtland, Our Common Future, p. x. 47 The Earth Summit, p. 103. 48 ‘The pre-UNCED text of the forest principles. Land resource: deforestation’, The Earth Summit, p. 110. 49 Ibid., pp. 104, 110. 50 Ibid., p. 114. 51 IUCN Forest Conservation Programme Newsletter, No. 14, Dec. 1992. 52 Though between 1980 and 1990 there was a slight decline in the area under rubber, cultivation of oil palm almost doubled during the same period, covering over 1. 6 million ha. Vincent and Rozali, ‘Agriculture’, in Environment and Development, p. 152. 53 Ibid., p. 127. 54 Ibid., pp. 127–128. 55 For a penetrating study of this, see Guyot, ‘The politics of land’, pp. 369–340. 56 Shafruddin, The Federal Factor, passim; Majid Cooke, The Challenge of Sustainable Development, pp. 96–99. 57 Vincent and Rozali, ‘Forests’, Environment and Development, pp. 128–129. 58 Although the government stated that except for projects in progress FELDA would cease to convert new land, development by State agencies continued during the 1990s, especially in Kelentan and Terengganu. Pang Hin Yue, ‘Forests still not given priority’, NST, 19 Dec. 1995. Sixth Malaysia Plan 1991–1995, Kuala Lumpur: National Printing Dept., p. 117.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 387 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

The Politics of Resource

•

387

59 J. Hafner, ‘Policies and policy issues affecting forest use in northeast Thailand’, in Poffenberger (ed.), Keepers of the Forest, pp. 73–76; Gillis, ‘Malaysia: Public policies and the tropical forest’, pp. 47–49, 119, 196–197. While in most States clearance exceeded agricultural needs, Kelantan suffered agricultural land shortage. See below. 60 Per capita GDP at M$1,999 in 1970 rose to M$4,411 in 1990. Vincent and Rozali, Environment and Development, p. 11; M. Scott, ‘The disappearing forests’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 12 Jan. 1989, p. 35. 61 The annual quota of 152,140 ha for logging was to comprise 71,200 ha from PRF and 80,940 ha from State Land Forest. Forestry in Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Primary Industries, n.d. [c. 1988], p. 34; Sixth Malaysia Plan, p. 95. 62 Majid Cooke, The Challenge of Sustainable Development, pp. 116, 129. 63 NST, 23 April 1990. 64 The findings were presented on 2 Feb. 1991 at a meeting of senior officials representing SEPU, MIDA (Malaysia Industry Development Authority), MTIB and the State Forest Departments. ‘Malaysia’s logging rate goes beyond sustainable yield levels’, Asian Timber, Feb. 1991, in WRFM, The Endangered Rain Forest, vol. I, p. 198. Also, see Vincent and Rozali, Environment and Development in Malaysia, p. 119. 65 Star, 14 April 1991. 66 Ibid. 67 Star, 26 Jan. 1991. 68 Star, 14 April 1991. 69 Asian Timber, Feb. 1991, in WRFM, The Endangered Rain Forest, vol. I, p. 198. 70 J. Ramayah, ‘War on illegal logging: Forestry department told to work with police and army’, NST, 28 Jan. 1993; M. Krishnamoorthy, K. Vijayan and Sufi Yusoff, ‘Loggers fined RM 24 m: Joint operations with army and police’, NST, 29 Jan. 1993. 71 M. Vatikiotis, ‘Sitting target: UMNO assembly attacks sultans’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 28 Nov. 1991. 72 ‘Production of logs by state’, Perangkaan Perhutanan [Forestry Statistics, Peninsular Malaysia], 1993, Forestry Department, p. 18. 73 Pang Hin Yue, ‘Timber concessions may be restricted’, NST, 26 March 1993. 74 ‘Pahang pledges to uphold any decision on timber licences’, NST, 5 Feb. 1993. 75 Sivakumar Kuttan, ‘Probe on timber tycoon: Wong being investigated for having undeclared goods’, NST, 20 Dec. 1992. 76 M. Lai, ‘Anwar orders probe on timber tycoon to proceed’, NST, 21 Dec. 1992. 77 M Lai, ‘Sultan: I did not pressure department’, NST, 21 Dec. 1992. 78 The crisis was fuelled largely by the Sultan’s frequent conflicts with the elected State Assembly, headed by the Chief Minister. For an account, see A. Harding, Law, Government and Constitution in Malaysia, The Hague: Kluwer Law, 1996, pp. 75–79; A.C. Milner, ‘Inventing Politics: The case of Malaysia’, Past and Present, 132 (1991) pp. 107–109. 79 H.P. Lee, Constitutional Conflicts in Contemporary Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1995, p. 96. 80 Proceedings of the State Legislative Assembly, Pahang, May 1991, pp. 8–9. 81 Lai, ‘Sultan: I did not pressure department’. For an account of the 1992 constitutional crisis, see ‘Battle over immunities’, in Lee, Constitutional Conflicts in Contemporary Malaysia, pp. 86–99. 82 Harding, Law, Government and the Constitution in Malaysia, pp. 76–79; Lee, Constitutional Conflicts in Contemporary Malaysia, pp. 90–94. 83 Majid Cooke, The Challenge of Sustainable Forests, Table 1, p. 122. 84 Ashraf Abdullah, ‘Amanah Saham Pahang Berhad identified as logging offender’, NST, 21 April 1994. For more on ASPA, see Majid Cooke, The Challenge of Sustainable Forests, pp. 103–107. 85 Ashraf Abdullah, ‘Amanah Saham Pahang Berhad identified as logging offender’, NST, 21 April 1994. 86 Editorial, ‘Preserving for posterity’, NST, 22 April 1994. 87 Ashraf Abdullah, ‘State firm biggest logging offender’, NST, 19 April 1994. 88 ‘Effective logging supervision reduces illegal felling in Pahang’, NST, 20 April 1994.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 388 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

388

89 ‘Tighter rules for logging’, NST, 26 Dec. 1993. 90 Tengku Sariffuddin, Khairun Nazirah, Kamarulzaman Salleh and Pang Hin Yue, ‘Forestry: Support of States required’, NST, 10 Jan. 1994. 91 National Forestry (Amendment) Act 1993, Section 8. 92 National Forestry (Amendment) Act 1993, Section 6 (b). 93 ‘Pahang forestry chief warns illegal loggers’, Business Times, 2 Feb. 1993. 94 Krishnamoorthy et al., ‘Loggers fined RM24 m’, NST, 29 Jan. 1993. 95 Mohamed Ali Suleiman, Deputy Head, Forest Management, to Director, ACA, 23 Feb. 1960, DF Conf. 216/50. 96 SFO, Pahang, to Chief Conservator of Forests, 28 Dec. 1961, No. 35; SFO to DFOs, Pahang, 15 Jan. 1962, No. 39, SFO Phg. 199/59; Berita Harian, 9 Jan. 1962. The accusations pertained, for example, to the collusion of uniformed staff with contractors. Staff were alleged to have adjusted timber boundaries for working areas and tampered with the computation of timber loads to evade the regulated limit on the Temerluh ferry. Diary of Che Din Embi, Asst Conservator of Forests, 18 Oct. 1958, SFO Phg. 191/57; Mohd Harun MohdTaib, SFO, 15 Jan. 1962, SFO Phg. 199/59. 97 SFO, Kuala Lipis, ‘Bribery and corruption’, 3 Nov. 1961, PHD. L. Conf. 2/60. 98 E.C. Foenander, DFO, Kuantan and Rompin, to the SFO, Pahang, ‘Bribery and corruption’, 4 Nov. 1961, PHD. L. Conf. 2/60. 99 Radio Talk on Bribery and Corruption by Abdul Aziz Abdul Majid, Permanent Secretary, Prime Minister’s Department, Kuala Lumpur, 14 Nov. 1959. 100 ‘Government defends men in Forest Department’, NST, 7 Dec. 1969; ‘Aziz: I won’t take back what I said on bribery’, Malay Mail, 15 Dec. 1962. 101 ‘Tighter rules for logging’, NST, 26 Dec. 1993. To ensure that only mature trees are harvested, controls are customarily exercised over the minimum diameter of trees felled. It was noted that those responsible for exercising these rules were often semi-skilled and poorly paid field personnel, open to bribery and intimidation. Among Rangers earning a modest M$300 per month, some were observed to own big cars. P. Bowring, ‘ A measure of confusion’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 2 Dec. 1977, p. 48; A. Rowley, ‘Forests: Save or squander?’; Far Eastern Economic Review, 2 Dec. 1977, p. 53. 102 ‘Forensic science can help nab illegal loggers’, NST, 4 March 1993. 103 ‘ACA sends names of officers to department’, NST, 27 Dec. 1992. 104 D. Tsuruoka, ‘Cutting down to size’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 4 July 1991. 105 Shamsul Akmar, ‘Crackdown uncovers more illegal logging’, New Sunday Times, 28 July 1991. 106 Juhaidi Yean Abdullah et al., ‘Efforts against illegal logging’, NST, 27 Dec. 1992. 107 Krishnamoorthy et al., ‘Loggers fined 24 m’, NST, 29 Jan. 1993. 108 ‘Forestry official: We got army help to detect illegal logging’, NST, 7 July 1995. 109 ‘Forensic science can help nab loggers’, NST, 4 March 1993. 110 ‘Effective logging supervision reduces illegal felling in Pahang’, The Sun, 20 April 1994. 111 ‘Production of logs by state’, Forestry Statistics, 1995, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press, 1996, p. 31. See also Appendix 2. 112 The Barisan emerged in 1954 as a fully-fledged tripartite alliance, with the United Malay National Organization (UMNO) as the dominant member and the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA) and the Malayan Indian Congress (MIC) as allies. 113 ‘Production of logs by state’, Forestry Statistics, 1995, p. 31. 114 Kamaruzaman Jusoff and Nik Muhamad Majid, ‘Integrating needs of the local community to conserve diversity in the state of Kelantan’, Biodiversity and Conservation, 4 (1995) pp. 109–110; ‘Kelantan government to replant damaged forest reserves’, Star, 17 Dec. 1995. 115 SEPU, Kelantan, had earlier considered the area only marginally suitable for agriculture and prone to erosion, a view supported by MARDI and the Agricultural Department. WWFM, ‘A Conservation Strategy for Negeri Kelantan Darulnaim’, vol. II, pp. 195–197; Lim Jit Sai et al., Detailed Reconnaissance Survey of the Kesedar Region, Kelantan, p. 42. 116 ‘Anwar blames greed for rape of Lojing’, NST, 21 Aug. 1994. 117 ‘Kelantan overlogging despite pledge, says Lim’, NST, 21 Aug. 1994. Under the Federal Constitution, the only direct sources of revenue for the States derived principally from land and forest licences. This put any opposition government at State level at a serious disadvantage for

KWells_book_4.fm Page 389 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

The Politics of Resource

118 119 120 121 122 123 124

125 126

127 128 129 130

131 132

133 134 135 136 137

138 139 140

•

389

Federal financial help in the form of loans and reimbursements. See J.H. Beaglehole, The District: A Study in Decentralization in West Malaysia, Hull Monographs in South-East Asia, London: OUP, 1976, pp. 78–79. ‘Anwar blames greed for rape of Lojing’, NST, 21 Aug. 1994. ‘Pahang not stopping loggers using road’, NST, 31 Aug. 1994; ‘Awasi pembalakan haram: Kelantan guna helikopter’, Watan, 25 July 1995. ‘Production of logs by state’, Forestry Statistics, 1995, p. 31. See Appendix 2. ‘Lim: Drastic cut in illegal logging’, NST, 4 July 1995. ‘More timber imports to help demand’, Sunday Times, 25 Sept. 1994; ‘Malaysia importing tin and rubber’, Business Times, 17 Oct. 1994; ‘Malaysian Timber Council’s multi-dimensional role’, NST, 24 Dec. 1995. See ‘Peninsular Malaysia: Wood production, 1953–84’ and ‘Peninsular Malaysia: Value of log and wood product exports, 1971–84’, Gillis, ‘Malaysia: Public policies and the tropical forest’, in Repetto and Gillis (eds), Public Policies and the Misuse of Forests, pp. 156–157; K.S. Jomo, ‘Malaysian forests, Japanese wood: Japan’s role in Malaysia’s deforestation’, in K.S. Jomo (ed.), Japan and Malaysian Development: In the Shadow of the Rising Sun, London: Routledge, 1994, p. 199. See Table 1: ‘Production of non-coniferous hardwood timber in Malaysia’, in Brookfield and Byron, Global Environmental Change, I, i (1990) p. 47. Consistent with declining stocks, the National Forestry Council resolved that under the Seventh Malaysia Plan (1996–2000) the quota for harvesting would be limited to 42,024 ha, compared with 52,520 ha and 72,000 ha under the Sixth and Fifth Malaysia Plans, respectively. Forestry Statistics, 1995, pp. 28–30. Forestry Statistics, 1995, pp. 28–30; ITTO, Annual Review and Assessment of the World Tropical Timber Situation, 1995, Yokohama: ITTO Division of Economic Information and Marketing Intelligence, 1995, p. 7. Forestry in Malaysia, Ministry of Primary Industries n.d. [c. 1988], p. 44. Muhammad Jabil, ‘Malaysia’s forestry policies’, p. 15; ITTO, Annual Review 1992, Yokohama: ITTO, p. 22. ‘State freezes new permits for sawmills’, Star, 12 Aug. 1995; Warta Sektor Perhutanan [Forest Sector Review] 1995, vol. II, pt. 2, p. 11. With the exception of a few integrated timber complexes managed by State Economic Development Corporations, the veneer and plywood processing industries that replaced the declining sawmill industry were owned largely by the private sector. Haron and Mohd Dusuki, Sustainable Forest Management in Malaysia, p. 13. ITTO, Annual Review… 1993, p. 37; ITTO, Annual Review… 1995, pp. 10, 24. Proceedings: Malaysian Timber Marketing Conference, Organized by the MTIB, 6–7 Dec. 1983, Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Trade and Primary Industries, 1983; Forestry Statistics, 1993, p. 40; ECE-FAO, Forest Products Annual Market Review, 1998–1999, 52, iii (1999) p. 118; Annual Report, 2000, Forestry Department, p. 81. ITTO, Annual Review… 1995, pp. iii, 25 Figures 12 and 13. ‘The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development’ as adopted at UNCED, reproduced in Johnson, The Earth Summit, pp. 110–115, 118–122. NST, 25 Nov.1992. ‘Adoption of Agreements on Environment and Development: Non-legally binding authoritative statement of principles for a global consensus on the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests’, in The Earth Summit, pp. 111–116. Memorandum: ‘Bandung Initiative on Forestry: A Call for Global Partnership for Sustainable Forest Development’, in Proceedings of a Conference: ‘Beyond UNCED’, Global Forestry Conference: Response to Agenda 21, 17–20 Feb. 1993, Organized by the Institute of Ecology, Pajajaran University, Bandung, Sponsored by the Ministry of Forestry, Republic of Indonesia; Indonesian Cultural Foundation and FAO/ UNEP, pp. 29–30. Oekas S. Abdoellah and Otto Soemarwoto, ‘Forest as an agent of sustainable development’, in Proceedings…, Beyond UNCED, pp. 161, 171–172. ‘Bandung Initiative on Forestry’, Beyond UNCED. In June 1993, WWF launched a Malaysian Consultative Study on FSC and the report was submitted to the Oct. 1993 meeting of the FSC General Assembly in Toronto. See ‘Forest

KWells_book_4.fm Page 390 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

141 142 143

144 145

146 147 148

149 150 151

152

153 154

•

390

Stewardship Council (FSC): Malaysian Consultative Study Report’. Prepared by the Malaysian FSC Consultative Study Working Group, WWFM, 1993. ‘Unfair restrictions can harm forests’, NST, 13 May 1993. ‘Help forge consensus on timber, says WWF’, NST, 13 May 1993; ‘Unfair restrictions can harm forests’, NST, 13 May 1993; Fadzil Ghazali, ‘Timber producing countries need new forms of aid’, Business Times, 13 May 1993. ‘Product labelling’: to indicate whether tropical timber and products derived from it are from sustainably managed forests. ‘Concession certification’: to indicate whether timber and wood products in a particular concession are sustainably produced. E. B. Barbier, J.C. Burgess, J. Bishop and B. Aylward, The Economics of the Tropical Timber Trade, London: Earthscan, 1994, pp. 132–155. Azam Aris, ‘Missing the wood for the trees’, The Edge, 19 Sept. 1994, p. 12. Malaysia’s counter-campaign was managed largely by its London-based Malaysian Timber Industry Development Council (MTIDC). The campaign included meetings with consumer countries; seminars for selected groups of professionals involved in the timber industry in Europe; and invitations to broadcast- and print journalists to visit Malaysia to see the country’s sustainable management initiatives. A common argument used in the campaign was that loss of national income resulting from any timber boycott would only result in the conversion of more forests to other economic uses. Baidura Ahmad, ‘Stepping up info drive in Europe on timber industry’, New Sunday Times, 26 Nov. 1994; ‘Putting timber in the proper light’, NST, 15 Dec. 1994. Baidura Ahmad, ‘Stepping up info drive in Europe on timber industry’. ‘Accepting need for timber certification’, NST, 25 May 1995. The roundwood equivalents of tropical hardwood exports to Japan and the EEC in 1984 are estimated at 14.7 and 11.8 million cu m, respectively. By 1989, Japanese imports had risen phenomenally to 23.8 million cu m, while the EEC consumption remained stable at about 11.7 million cu m, or roughly equivalent to half the amount imported by Japan. While Japanese imports weighed heavily in favour of plywood, the EEC remained the leading importer of sawn wood. See C. Secrett, ‘How transnational corporations and government control exploit 3rd world resources’, in Proceedings … ‘Forest Resources Crisis’, p. 236, Appendix I: ‘Volume of tropical timber products …’, p. 245; Jomo ‘Malaysian forests, Japanese wood’, Table 7.1: ‘Imports of tropical timber by major consuming countries’, p. 189; Barbier, et al., The Economics of the Tropical Timber Trade, Table 4.1: ‘Net imports of tropical timber products in major markets, 1990’, p. 35. Azman, ‘Missing the wood for the trees’, p. 12. ‘A pliant sector’, The Edge, 19 Sept. 1994, p. 13. Out of ITTO’s 5 Criteria and 27 Indicators for sustainable management of natural tropical forest, the MC&I adopted by Malaysia omitted two of the proposed indicators. These related to ‘Availability of Environmental Assessment Procedures’ under the criterion, SocioEconomic Effects, and ‘Relationship of National Policy to ITTO Guidelines’ under the criterion, Institutional Framework. The former was considered already covered under the criterion for Level of Environmental Control and the latter deemed adequately met by Malaysia’s National Forest Policy. At the same time, two other indicators were added, namely, ‘Plantation Establishment of NTFP and Annual Planting Targets’, under ITTO’s criterion for Forest Resource Base, and ‘Expenditure Budgets for Forest Administration’, under ITTO’s criterion for Socio-Economic Effects. Thang Hooi Chiew, ‘Formulation and implementation of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management in Malaysia’, Paper presented at a Workshop on Forest Management Certification, 12–13 Dec. 1996, FRIM, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur, n.p. Using the 1992 ITTO ‘Guidelines and Criteria’ as well as the 1994 ‘Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Management of Natural Tropical Forests’, the National Committee drafted the ‘Malaysian Criteria and Indicators’ (MC&I)’. ‘Forest Stewardship Council (FSC): Malaysian Consultative Study Report’; see n. 140 above. Zul Mukhshar Md. Shaari, ‘Malaysia’s role as a leader in tropical forest management’. Paper presented during the Malaysian Timber Marketing Convention, 29 Sept.–1 Oct. 1999, Kuala Lumpur: MTIB, 1999. The MTIB was responsible for initiating development in the various sectors of the timber industry. It provided advisory service to help develop the industry, assisted in the marketing of timber-based produce and supervised and regulated overseas trade.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 391 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

The Politics of Resource

•

391

155 It was envisaged that FSC would act as a ‘certifier of certifiers’ to ensure an internationally consistent, independent verification of sustainable forest management practices worldwide. Besides the FSC, a number of other NGOs, such as Greenpeace, WWF and FoE have a supplementary role in certification. Accredited certifiers, in turn, will issue timber certificates, employing approved criteria relating to the origin, management, harvesting and the procedure for marketing. S. Appanah, Thang Hooi Chiew, Samsudin Musa and Ismail Parlan (eds), Forest Management Certification Workshop Proceedings, 12–13 Dec. 1996, Kuala Lumpur: FRI and Forestry Department, 1997, pp. 18–19. 156 For example, the UK Parliamentary Commission noted that its members recognized a ‘serious internal tension’ in ITTO’s brief to balance conservation objectives with its accredited role in promoting international trade. House of Lords, Select Committee of the European Communities on Tropical Forests, London: HMSO, 1990, p. 11. 157 It has been argued that while ITTO’s special responsibility towards timber producers and purchasers commits it to an ‘associated interest’ in the conservation of forest genetic resources, the lead responsibility for monitoring the conservation of biological diversity rests within the UN group of agencies, principally FAO, UNEP, WHO and UNESCO and NGOs such as IUCN and WWF. J.M. Blockhus, M. Dillenbeck, J.A. Sayer and P. Wegge (eds), ‘Malaysia’ (Based on the work of Thang Hooi Chiew), Conserving Biological Diversity in Managed Tropical Forests, Proceedings of a Workshop held at the IUCN General Assembly, Perth, Australia, 30 Nov.–1 Dec. 1990, IUCN/ITTO, 1992, p. 18. 158 Gale, The Tropical Timber Trade Regime, pp. 156–157.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 392 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Domestic Response to the New International Order: Rio and After Saving the rainforest is about making connections. It’s too big for any one group to tackle on their own … . By staying flexible and joining together with other organisations we can perhaps, for the first time, begin to influence the very basis of political economic relationships on the planet…. – Charles Secrett.1

genda 21, together with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), gained international consensus on ‘sustainable and environmentally sound development of forests … for securing [their] multiple roles.’ 2 The concept of multiple-use forests, already incorporated into Peninsular Malaysia’s National Forestry Act, was proof of a government keen on the rhetoric of global firsts and cognizant of the influence of environmental politics on the domestic economy. While weaknesses in forest management deterred proper enforcement of the policy, implicit in Malaysia’s acceptance of Agenda 21 and the ‘Forest Principles’, was its commitment to reform.3 Can the prospect of greater market security, in the form of Timber Certification, influence Malaysia’s response?

A

PO L I C Y A N D PR A C T I CE

A key feature of environmentalism in the developing tropics is the campaign to set aside a minimum quota of TPA constituting sample areas of climax forest. This target, important particularly given Malaysia’s location within the speciesrich Malesian region, was accepted in principle in its National Forestry Policy. 4 IUCN’s Third World National Parks conference held in 1982 in Bali recommended dedicating 10 per cent of a nation’s land area to parks and reserves. 5 This quota would have been met had the country adopted the Malayan Nature Society’s proposed areas for protection in its Blue Print, incorporated into the Third Malaysia Plan (see p. 314). Instead, the long process of de-gazetting and reclassification, particularly of VJRs and Wildlife Reserves meant that parks and reserves stood at only 5.8 per cent (763,300 ha) in 1986 and less, at 5.48 per cent (740,000 ha), ten years later.6 By 2000 the total extent of the National Park and nature reserves was a mere 645,217 ha or 4.9 per cent.7

KWells_book_4.fm Page 393 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Domestic Response to the New International Order: Rio and After

•

393

Apart from their limited area, parks and reserves enjoyed no security of tenure. A case in point is Taman Negara’s loss of 4,050 ha to the Kenyir Dam (see p. 328), despite its protection under a Federal Act. Many of the smaller protected areas became isolated through fragmentation and clearance of intervening forest. As well as being open to encroachment, the TPAs were neither sufficiently representative nor extensive, either individually or in aggregate, for preservation of the maximum range of biodiversity.8 Moreover, lowland dipterocarp forests, mangrove and other swamp forests were under-represented, particularly in the VJR system.9 By the 1990s, telltale signs of arbitrary land use were manifested in the conversion of the remaining fragments of biologically important wetlands to farming and agriculture. During 1992–96, Pahang, with the largest area of peat swamp remaining in the Peninsula, lost 41 per cent, constituting about 144,000 ha in the Rompin-Pekan area to oil palm, rice, fish ponds and a Taiwanese eel farm.10 Also in Pahang, the biologically important Tasik (Lake) Cini and its river, were silted by surrounding FELDA oil palm estates. The State’s attempt to raise the water level through building a weir, against the advice of ecologists, misfired causing disastrous flooding. A Wetlands International Asia Pacific (WIAP)11 survey conducted in 1999 declared trees in 80 per cent of the area surrounding the lake to be dead or dying. A further 560 ha, out of the 700 ha of freshwater forest and swamp forest, were destroyed. Subsequently, rehabilitation of the lake was initiated, but the promise made in 1989 by Pahang’s Chief Minister to declare Tasik Cini a nature park remained a dead letter.12 The Tropical Forest Action Plan initiative (see pp. 345–346) proposed a higher, 10–15 per cent of the land area as a reasonable national minimum quota for TPAs in the moist tropics, if supported by adequate areas of well-managed Production Forests.13 As TPAs in the Peninsula fell seriously short of this quota, sufficient areas of Forest Reserves, managed with minimum intervention, were regarded an important adjunct, although the nation relied increasingly on the same forests for sustainable harvests.14 By the year 2000, apart from the fast dwindling State Land Forests, the Forest Reserves, constituting some 4.6 million ha, represented the entire inland forest holding.15 Yet their status under State jurisdiction was insecure. Despite accepting the NFA, States readily exploited legal loopholes for gaining access to forests for logging and land development. The 1984 National Forestry Act allows excisions within the PRF, if ‘required for economic use higher than that for which it is being utilized’, with the obligation to constitute an ‘approximately equal area’ as PRF.16 However, the States endorsed the Act conditional to abandonment of the original proposal, under Section 12, for replacement of excisions ‘immediately’. Not least, the Act’s provision for computing replacement for excisions in terms of size only, reflected failure to appreciate the biological value of specific forest habitats.17 Replacements were often in forests above 300 m, poorer in biodiversity terms, and were rarely made with sufficient attention to non-

KWells_book_4.fm Page 394 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

394

timber services. Many Virgin Jungle Reserves (VJRs), without proper gazetting, have been logged18 despite numerous calls by NGOs for their protection. Of 24 newly established VJRs in 1978, F.E. Putz, a Peace Corps volunteer from FRI, identified 18 in the different States as potential recreational areas. 19 To date, however, out of a total of 87 VJRs, only four qualify according to IUCN criteria as protected areas.20 Though State autonomy in forest management was jealously guarded, it was believed that given the necessary incentives States would respond readily to enforcement of the National Forest Policy and the national response to Agenda 21. This expectation was compromised by resurgent forest politics under the New Development Policy (NDP). Launched in 1991, the NDP shifted emphasis from poverty eradication to growth and equity by creating a viable bumiputera entrepreneurial community. The policy was linked with ‘Vision 2020’, which targeted attainment of advanced nation status.21 Under the NDP, a buoyant economy and an expanding population that stood at 14.8 million in 1991 spearheaded a fresh spate of land clearance for infrastructure and development and compromised environmental protection.22 The expansion of the timber industry under NDP increased forestry’s problem of reconciling wood output with forest protection. Yet the Federal government’s attitude to de-gazetting remained ambiguous, as evident in Prime Minister Mahathir’s response in one instance: I need to ascertain whether the forest reserves were degazetted or were used for development ... [W]e can’t have the whole country gazetted as a forest reserve.23

In Terengganu, de-gazetting for pre-development timber extraction took place within the PRF despite large tracts of forest land still available outside reserves.24 The bulk of the land was assigned to the Central Terengganu Development Authority (Lembaga Kemajuan Terengganu Tengah – KETENGAH) for oil palm cultivation, ignoring even the criteria of soil conditions on which the Land Capability Classification was based.25 Still other areas were allocated for road-building and new industrial sites. By the end of 1992, much of the remaining 0.5 million ha of PRF, constituting roughly one-third of the State, was montane forest.26 Similarly, Melaka, despite acknowledging the vital need for catchment protection, de-gazetted forest land for development. 27 Between 1986 and 1992, a total of 144,406 ha of Forest Reserve in the Peninsula, equivalent to the size of Melaka State, were de-gazetted – this despite 800,000 ha of State Land, larger than the size of Selangor, being available for development.28 Commenting on the de-gazetting of large tracts of Forest Reserves for logging prior to conversion the New Straits Times warned: The logging of tropical timber has of late been controversial. Even without the prompting of Western conservationists...we know only too well that the preservation of our forests is for our long-term interests ... There is no place here for the Malaysian trait of sudden flurries of action alternated with long slumbers.29

KWells_book_4.fm Page 395 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Domestic Response to the New International Order: Rio and After

•

395

The total forest cover in the Peninsula declined from 8.2 million ha or 62.5 per cent of the total land area in 1972, to 6.8 million ha or 51.8 per cent in 1981.30 At 6.3 million ha or 48 per cent in 1991, it was further reduced, by 1995, to 5.9 million ha or 45.4 per cent of the land area (Appendix 1). By the 1990s, both PRFs and the total cultivated area were nearly on a par, each at over 4 million ha. 31 As the Director-General of Forestry, Mohamed Darus Mahmud (1987–92) noted, States regarded Forest Reserves as land banks, freely allocating them for activities that were often environmentally detrimental. He quoted the example of freshwater swamp forests de-gazetted and allocated for agricultural purposes with serious implications for the water-table in the surrounding areas. As an urgent measure for coordinating and controlling changes in land use and ensuring security of tenure for PRFs, he emphasized the need for a national master plan, specifying the purpose of any particular piece of land.32 The absence of an integrated land use programme for effective enforcement of forest policy remained a stumbling block, particularly under a natural regeneration system of management where a longer gestation period is required.33 As J. Wyatt-Smith stressed, ‘The omission of a land-use policy can be disastrous to forestry.’ 34 THE CONUNDR UM OF SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT

Against the backdrop of insecurity, by 2000 the forest service was obliged to enforce management based on ITTO’s criteria.35 The onus was on foresters ‘to strike the right economic and ecological balance’ such that national economic benefits would be successfully reconciled with international expectations of sound forest management.36 Having remained in the shadows with little opportunity of bringing professional expertise to bear on national policy, foresters emerged as key agents in Malaysia’s agenda for ‘sustainable development’. Crucially, the programme for sustainable management rested on forest protection, to which end they were obliged, as J. Sayer reminded, ‘to be much more vocal politically in representing the case of the forests at the political level’. 37 But scientific and technical problems of sustainable production, consonant with biodiversity protection, were made more difficult by irregular harvesting practices. Statistics for the Peninsula, as indeed for the tropics as a whole, demonstrate that round-wood production continued to grow at an exponential rate, spurred by domestic consumption and external demand.38 Besides physical damage to timber stands, harvesting effected profound changes on the internal structure and composition of forests. Though, in principle, foresters considered application of minimum intervention in SMS compatible with protection of a very large proportion of fauna and flora,39 its practical application for profitable harvesting raised problems. In many cases, larger annual coupes were cut than originally intended.40 Moreover, in terms of biodiversity maintenance, the SMS harvesting cycle of 30–50 years was found to be alarmingly short for regeneration in the remaining hill forests. In fact, foresters posited that discrete management practices for biodiversity maintenance required a return to the cycle of full natural regeneration, estimated at 100–125 years.41

KWells_book_4.fm Page 396 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

396

In practice, however, with high capital investment in logging equipment, timber operators found it uneconomic to adopt the scientific prescription that favoured selective felling at longer intervals. In fact, a majority of the concessions in the Peninsula were set for a period of 15 years or less, though even the minimum SMS cutting cycle of 25–30 years was considered too optimistic as it did not allow for slower growth rates and mortality in logged-over forest. 42 Furthermore, SMS increased the frequency of extraction damage by machinery such as crawler tractors and sky-lines.43 Damage to unlogged trees was as high as 60 per cent in some areas.44 The timber-rich seraya (Shorea curtisii), which flourishes on hill ridges, was particularly prone to damage by the construction of logging roads. That emphasis on productivity compromised biodiversity maintenance in PRFs was made evident in Malaysia’s Forest Inventories. Following the pattern initiated by FAO for Inventory I (1972) that surveyed the potential for timber extraction only, Inventories II (1981) and III (1992) excluded mention of habitat type.45 Apart from the reduction in unlogged (‘virgin’) forests from 3.4 million ha in 1972 to 1.7 million ha in 1991,46 there was an 18 per cent decline in forest area and a 28 per cent reduction in mean biomass, significant in terms of forest structure, microclimate and related biodiversity.47 Indications that disturbance can affect species composition contributed to apprehension of genetic erosion resulting from extraction under SMS of superior trees.48 As F.S.P. Ng has pointed out, it is the big trees that provide the threedimensional organization of forests, furnishing support for epiphytes and lianes and creating suitable conditions for smaller trees and other vegetation.49 Under regimes where the larger trees are extracted, the remaining trees may suffer damage, be retarded in growth and subsequently die.50 In tropical rain forests where ‘far more species are uncommon than common’ warned Ng, there is a high risk involved in reducing the number of individuals below a minimum sustainable breeding population.51 E.F. Bruenig cast doubt on the threat of genetic erosion because of the potential growth of residual stands of saplings, unless over-optimistically short cutting cycles were adopted;52 but these, in fact, became increasingly the norm. Already evident by 1998 was a significant decrease through selective felling of medium-hardwoods (especially seraya), in great demand overseas.53 Among medium-hardwoods, most of the keruing had been depleted,54 bringing heavier reliance on the light-hardwoods, especially meranti, with a greater potential for regeneration. By the mid-1980s when many areas entered the second rotation of harvesting, probably prematurely, output decreased and triggered a doubling in coupe areas, with harvest exceeding growth rates.55 The national average of 52 cu m/ ha harvested in the 1990s compared with an average 140.4 cu m/ha of timber logged from kapur forest in 1977.56 During the first half of 1987, for example, the total harvested area, constituting 65 per cent previously logged forest, represented a 20.5 per cent increase over the corresponding period of the

KWells_book_4.fm Page 397 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Domestic Response to the New International Order: Rio and After

•

397

previous year but increased output by only 2.8 per cent.57 Conscious that the trend of diminishing returns had biological implications as well, foresters put their faith in improved management to achieve some degree of balance between economic and environmental goals. Bearing in mind that, by definition, managed forests cannot offer maximum diversity, Wyatt-Smith recommended artificial regeneration for optimum production on the principle that the smaller the area required to produce the necessary wood cellulose, the larger the area made available for environmental and conservation objectives.58 The 1984 NFA, in fact, allowed for the allocation of PRFs for ‘dominant use’ within the concept of multiple-use. 59 The forest economist, J.R.Vincent, supported the concept of ‘dominant use/functions’. He pointed out that uniform harvesting under the monocyclic system, which does not impose cutting limits, made better economic sense. With the improved market for mixed species, it was expected to reduce violation of logging restrictions inherent in the SMS system. Adoption of the concept implied the need to ‘shift the focus of the policy debate from the issue of how to harvest and manage tropical forests … to the broader issue of how much forest area to allocate to specific use categories’.60 Based on the same idea, Thang proposed the desirability of balancing ‘intensive’ management of the more productive and accessible natural forest with ‘minimum intervention’ in managing the remaining forests for biodiversity objectives.61 This may imply restriction of ‘minimum intervention’ largely to the less biologically rich hill forests. Securing the benefits of SMS for environmentally sympathetic harvesting requires strict adherence to management prescriptions. Fundamental is a prefelling inventory, which can be flawed by the lack of a comprehensive master plan for land use and adequate maps demarcating Protection and Production Forests. Also needed under the SMS system is control and supervision of felling, which can otherwise turn into a mining operation, induced partly by overinvestment in processing. It is believed that improved technology in the wood industry will allow the use of a wider range of timber species and, combined with lower wastage in harvesting,62 will contribute to greater sustainability of forest resources. However, training loggers in the rudiments of responsible harvesting implies increased staff capacity.63 The problem of arriving at a scientific formula or guideline for reconciling minimum intervention with optimum productivity was not helped by externally induced weakness in management. First, pressure from politicians was conducive to short felling cycles, over-cutting, clear felling, re-entry and illegal harvesting. 64 Second, the uncertainty of short-tenure logging discouraged private investment in sustainable practices, encouraging ‘mining’. Third, under-valuation of timber, apart from depriving the government of returns for investment in silvicultural treatment, put pressure on logging contractors to recover, by irregular means, capital investment in machinery, labour and rent payment to concessionaires. 65

KWells_book_4.fm Page 398 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

398

The difference between royalty and stumpage value, in fact, widened over time, as reflected in the royalty paid on Pahang red meranti, at M$7/cu m in 1978 and M$12/cu m in 1985, compared with the real log price of M$100–200 during the same period.66 The result of this and the ban on round-wood exports produced an expansion in processing capacity, in excess of sustained yield. The adoption of more realistic royalties and premiums was seen as one important means of promoting reduction of wastage and demand for more compact harvesting areas, thereby minimizing damage to the forest. 67 This implied differentiated ad valorum rates for the more valuable ‘primary’ and the less valuable ‘secondary’ species, with appropriate discounting for the cost of harvesting and transportation for export. The viability of sustainable timber production and high revenue yields from rainforest timber remains questionable. Problems include the long periodicity of harvest cycles, high management and harvesting costs, market uncertainty due to international competition68 and the increasing availability of tropical wood substitutes. In economic terms, international agreements are deemed indispensable for establishing an appropriate trade mechanism, incorporating the values of equitable pricing for rain forest produce and the globally-shared cost of protecting them. In Malaysia where the prices for wood and wood-based products have been kept artificially low to maintain global competitiveness, sustainable management dictates appropriate reforms in timber pricing. Taking into account the overall cost of management and non-timber values lost to logging, timber prices should reflect a whole range of direct and indirect investment, besides harvesting cost.69 Arguably, by rendering lower levels of harvesting economically viable, higher priced timber can provide the incentive for State governments to adopt environmentally sustainable levels of harvesting. AN INTE G R A TE D MA N A G E M E N T INI T I A T IVE

As a means of promoting greater cooperation of private enterprise with government policy and planning, integrated forest management initiatives were explored. In 1979, Golden Pharos, a holding Company in Malaysia, owning the subsidiary timber company, Kumpulan Pengurusan Kayu-Kayan Terengganu (KPKKT),70 secured 128,720 ha primary forest in south-western and central Terengganu, constituting the single largest concession ever awarded for sustainable management. Harvesting was to be in line with the State’s policy of adopting cutting cycles, under SMS, of 55 and 30 years for yields of 77 cu m /ha and 61 cu m /ha, respectively. Within the programme of minimum intervention was protection of plants of medical value. KPKKT was hailed by a Malaysian forester as the best example – with the exception of the Sabah Foundation’s Forests in the Danum Valley – of a managed forest in Southeast Asia. The experiment was expected to enable Terengganu to emerge as the first Peninsular State with timber labelled in accordance with ITTO regulations. 71

KWells_book_4.fm Page 399 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Domestic Response to the New International Order: Rio and After

•

399

A management assessment made in 1996 of logging in Terengganu’s PRFs, however, fell short of expectations. The survey, conducted by SGS (Société Générale de Surveillance) Malaysia, concluded that harvesting practices had failed to comply with the specification for ‘an acceptable level of environmental impact’ to qualify for ‘Malaysian Criteria & Indicators’ (MC&I) management certification. Shortcomings related to location of skid trails and lack of protection for slopes over a 20-degree gradient with the planting of cover crops and grass. Woodmark, a certification agency accredited by the FSC, later surveyed Terengganu’s timber industry preparatory to certification. It agreed with SGS about ‘the lack of emphasis on the non-timber values of the forest, particularly biodiversity, wildlife management and social needs’.72 The KPKKT experiment raised questions about the viability of sustainable production on an environmentally sound basis, particularly within a political culture based on business patronage and short-term returns. Weaknesses in Terengganu’s forest management system led to a joint Malaysian–German initiative for improved administration in a pilot area, in Dungun, located within the KPKKT timber concession area in the Jengai, Jerangun and Pasir Raja Forest Reserves.73 The scheme was launched in 1994, with the technical expertise of the German agency, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeid (GTZ).74 A special feature of the ten-year project, divided into three phases, is forest zoning on the basis of dominant functions within the broader spectrum of multi-purpose use. 75 Included in the zonation for sound management are Soil Protection Forest, Soil Reclamation Forest and Flood Control Forest, in compliance with Section 10 (1) of the NFA. 76 The Malaysian–German Sustainable Development Project aims also at translating into practice international goals for extending the non-timber services of forestry.77 The improvement of NTFP and the closely related aspect of community forestry form important facets of GTZ’s management. The project hopes to pave the way for integrating the timber economy with rural development to boost employment and income opportunities.78 Supplementary income earned by communities in Hulu Dungun in Terengganu from eaglewood (Aquilaria malaccensis) suggests the contribution that NTFP can make to rural development.79 The survival of the Orang Asli, in particular, rests upon improved income from the harvesting of bamboo, rattan, petai and durian.80 Provided appropriate laws and agreements governing International Property Rights and benefit-sharing arrangements are in place,81 the patenting of pharmaceutical and genetic resource extraction has positive implications. As well as advancing medical science and bringing profit to industry, it can potentially benefit forest people and rural communities, returning them to the mainstream market.82 However, the Malaysian–German Project, now in its final phase, remains experimental and the prospect of replicating similar sustainable management projects within the larger body of PRFs is uncertain.83

KWells_book_4.fm Page 400 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

22. Surviving Batek life i. Foraging (K. Rubeli) ii. Fishing (K. Rubeli) iii. ‘Burial’ among the trees (K. Rubeli)

•

400

KWells_book_4.fm Page 401 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Domestic Response to the New International Order: Rio and After

•

401

Assistance with sustainable management from external agencies, such as GTZ, was made desirable by the need for research funding and the reluctance of the domestic forestry sector to risk conflict with power groups in pressing issues of biological and silvicultural realities.84 But, faced with the crisis of forest depletion and emboldened by the government’s environmental rhetoric, foresters have in recent years claimed a more direct part in national-resource accounting.85 In 1996 the Director-General of Forestry publicly condemned some States for de-gazetting PRFs while moving at a ‘snail’s pace’ to gazette new areas as stipulated in the NFA. Their 1994 pledge to gazette a total of 186,341 ha of PRFs was not fulfilled. Resigned to the fact that the NFA had no legal force, the Forestry Department emphasized the importance of changing the mindset of politicians and bureaucrats such that they ceased to regard the forest as ‘a timber gold mine’.86 Relations between forest administrators and the State governments have been severely tested over funding for forest rehabilitation. A total of M$700– M$800 million spent over a five-year period up to 1995 was declared insufficient due, in some cases, to States having used for other purposes the cess collections specifically ear-marked for silviculture and rehabilitation. To make up for the shortfall, the Ministry of Trade and Industry introduced a new export levy on some classes of timber. But apart from monitoring the use of these funds by the States through the National Forestry Council, the Ministry could do little to regulate spending.87 The plea by the States that inadequate funding deterred implementation of sustainable management was challenged by Salleh Mohd Nor, Director-General of FRIM. The same target could be achieved, he maintained, ‘with much less money, but with better control, improved professionalism and a greater sense of political commitment’.88 He also believed that States should be wholly responsible for financing management of the PRFs, allowing the export levies to be diverted to reforestation and afforestation programmes by the private sector, under management of the MTC.89 This was envisaged as a means of integrating logging with downstream industry and export, engaging private sector participation in the programme for sustainable production.90 These ideas were consistent with the FAO Model Code of Forest Harvesting Practices introduced in 1996 within the framework of Agenda 21. Meant as a guideline for member countries, it stressed the importance of cooperation among foresters, loggers and planners. Close rapport between the public and private sectors was expected to lend a social and cultural dimension to the adoption and enforcement of policies and legislation.91 Involvement of the private sector, as indeed of the rural community in integrated forest development, was recognized as a long-term commitment. Of immediate concern was the imminence of the year 2000 set by ITTO for the adoption of its criteria. The National Forestry Council settled on higher taxation as a mechanism for achieving the twin targets of improved manage-

KWells_book_4.fm Page 402 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

402

ment and enhanced reforestation for sustainable production. In 1996 the cess on logs increased from M$2.80 to M$10 per cu m and the royalties rose by about 300 per cent to between M$11 and M$147 per cu m, depending on species. However, investors expressed disappointment and frustration at the delay in utilizing some M$300 million accumulated from the export levy on sawn timber for reforestation and increased production.92 Though the higher levies were an incentive for State governments to reduce logging, both concessionaires and exporters expected returns for taxes in the form of increased access to timber. The culture of resource exploitation for profit maximization, vastly out of step with sustainable productivity and improved management, had produced a timber juggernaut. OVER THE TOP

The Seventh Malaysia Plan 1996–2000, launched after the Peninsula had entered peak economic growth, promised that the ‘public and private sectors will increasingly work in tandem to address the requirements of sustainable development’.93 The investment sector readily cashed in on the concept for expanding opportunities under the prevailing economic boom, not least in the urban development sector. Indiscriminate resort and housing development became widespread. The reaction it provoked among a populace committed to defending its economic stake and quality of life was of profound significance to Malaysian environmentalism. A plan by the Kuala Lumpur-based company, Sitrac Corporation, to seek Pahang’s approval to convert a Forest Reserve in Janda Baik into a tourist resort, challenged forest and conservation policies. The project, which came to public attention in 1995, involved development of more than two-thirds of the 3,000 ha-reserve, lying on the Pahang highlands bordering Selangor, into a tourist resort. It was to include a M$300 million golf course, a golf academy, a tennis club, a spa and health club, as well as a thousand homesteads.94 The project, to be managed by Civitas Urban Designers of Vancouver, was represented by Sitrac as ‘orderly development’ and an improvement on the use of the reserve for illegal slash-and-burn ginger cultivation. Sitrac’s claim that it would be working with FRIM in tree planting schemes was stoutly denied by the Director-General and MNS President, Salleh Mohd Nor: To my mind, what Sitrac is doing is only looking for an excuse to make profits under the pretext of preserving the environment. That is sinful. How can you be preserving the environment when you are developing such a large area of forest reserves?95

The project threatened the status of residents in the Janda Baik Malay Reserve, included in the concession. Already distressed by the continued clearing of the reserve and the use of chemicals by Chinese ginger cultivators that affected their reliance on river fish, residents now faced the prospect of increased flooding

KWells_book_4.fm Page 403 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Domestic Response to the New International Order: Rio and After

•

403

from land clearance, displacement and possible eviction.96 As one member of Kampung Janda Baik said with commonsense wisdom: It is plain that Janda Baik is not meant to be developed this way. It is too fast, too much and too crude. Too many people want to come here. They may not run out of money but Janda Baik may run out of land.97

His anxiety was shared by the neighbouring Orang Asli community whose livelihood was threatened by encroachment on its communal rights to forest produce.98 The proposed Janda Baik development had also broader ecological implications that concerned conservationists.99 Approved in May 1997, the Janda Baik development increased tension between the Chinese ginger cultivators and the resident Malay and Orang Asli populace, all the victims of big business. When floods occurred at the beginning of April 1999 along the Genting Sempah–Janda Baik Road, the Chinese cultivators took the blame entirely for the increased susceptibility of the area to landslides.100 The issue, nonetheless, marked another important milestone in Malaysia’s road to environmental awakening. Sentiments on conservation once confined largely to the urban middle class, were now articulated throughout the social spectrum and were brought to a head by a number of development issues. Among matters that focused public attention on allegedly irresponsible development was the spate of landslides. The worst occurred in 1993, in Hulu Kelang, Selangor, killing 48 residents of ‘Highland Towers’. 101 On 20 June 1995, another landslide along the Genting Highlands road, near the Genting-Sempah Pass, claimed 20 lives with 22 injured, and was one of 30 reported in a single month. The explanation of the Minister of Works, Samy Vellu, that these events were ‘acts of God’ was received with ridicule among an increasingly wellinformed public, already paying the price for environmental degradation. The real reason, believed to be illegal logging of the Forest Reserve in Genting Highlands and development at the hill top, was acknowledged by the Minister of Science, Environment and Technology.102 The NGO campaign that followed brought together a variety of organizations, including WWFM (of which Sultan Azlan Shah of Perak was Patron) and the small but fearless opposition party, the Democratic Action Party (DAP). Rejecting the argument that the landslides resulted from natural causes, they demanded an investigation by an independent Royal Commission. Malay dailies, including the popular Utusan Malaysia and the Beritan Harian, joined the debate on the cause of landslide-related catastrophes. The latter boldly asserted that it would be unfair to attribute the tragedy to natural causes, ignoring human interference.103 WWFM upheld the view that as landslides threatened safety, the public had the right to accurate information.104 Economic growth, state-sponsored education and urbanization had contributed to the emergence of a middle class, able to influence and consolidate public opinion.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 404 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

404

Its protests earned the Prime Minister’s promise to call a public inquiry into the Genting Highlands landslide. The issue of landslides encouraged articulation of concerns also over the proposed highland development, based on the construction of a highway, dubbed the ‘skyway’, along the Main Range linking the hill resorts of Cameron Highlands, Fraser’s Hill and Genting Highlands. The potential environmental impact of the proposed road, at a 1,000 m altitude along a steep 30–60 degree slope, was investigated by WWFM. Its report warned that during the course of 1991 alone over 151 erosion-prone areas had been identified along the existing East-West Highway between Gerik and Kota Baharu, incurring M$180 million in remedial work. The erosion hazard posed by the highway threatened the safety of water catchments, situated mostly in the relics of the PRF flanking the Main Range.105 The adverse effects were predicted to undermine rather than attract tourism as envisaged.106 Opinion in the Malay press, fundamentally opposed to hill development, 107 curiously echoed sentiments expressed some fifty years earlier in Ishak Haji Muhammad’s Putera Gunong Tahan (see pp. 246–247). Tan Sri Khir Johari, President of WWFM, whose popularity straddled ethnic divides, strengthened the campaign’s credibility.108 To create a wider awareness of the critical importance of protecting highland habitat, WWFM launched a 30-second filmlet, screened in local cinemas and on television. There were parallel press campaigns.109 The Sun published comprehensive, illustrated information sheets predicting ecological disaster in the form of biodiversity loss, erosion, landslides, sedimentation, water pollution and changes in weather patterns.110 The strength of public protest, which won the backing of the Finance Minister, Daim Zainuddin and the Deputy Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim, halted plans for the highway project.111 Development of individual highland resorts continued all the same. The press noted 15 development projects in sensitive areas in Cameron Highlands, despite erosion problems noted decades earlier.112 The Highland Towers tragedy, once again, had highlighted the serious implications of the lack of an integrated national land use policy and appropriate legislation. Public demand for curbs on development partly materialized in the form of a more stringent application of EIA safeguards. The Town and Country Planning Act of 1976, amended in 1995, stipulated tree preservation and required project proponents to incorporate environmental conservation measures within proposed plans.113 In addition, in May 1997 a cabinet order was issued for weeding out projects involving indiscriminate hill development but hardly brought home to the building industry the basic tenet of respecting natural contours. The effects of indiscriminate cutting by developers exaggerated the effects of high rainfall in 1999, proclaimed ‘the year of landslides’. With no moratorium on highland development, Cameron Highlands witnessed the growth of the township of Teringkap, giving rise to speculation that this, together with other developments in the highlands, could influence climate

KWells_book_4.fm Page 405 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Domestic Response to the New International Order: Rio and After

•

405

change, causing higher temperatures and reduced rainfall. In Kelantan, development in the Lojing Highlands proceeded unhampered (see p. 380). Plans were underway to link Lojing, across the Main Range, with Perak, where highland development plans were gaining momentum. The project involved the clearance of 1,200 ha of primary forest on the slope of Gunung Korbu, against warnings from the Director-General of Forestry about the risk posed to the Kinta Valley water supply.114 By 1999, almost 9,000 ha opened up for agriculture, together with logging in the Lojing Highlands, affected slope stability. The resulting erosion was alleged to have silted the Beruk and other rivers in the area.115 Public sensitivity grew as environmental mismanagement impinged increasingly on the daily life of citizens. The ill-fated Tasik Cini, for example, signalled to fraught urban dwellers – beset by problems of taps running dry, water rationing and pollution – the importance of even the once denigrated swamp forests for sustaining the ecosystem.116 Closer to home, development-related landslides on Fraser’s Hill117 and in the Bukit Antarabangsa housing estate in the heart of Kuala Lumpur, were problems which, as one concerned citizen put it, were ‘hitting Malaysians right in the face’.118 Landslips along the Gap–Kuala Lipis road in the Fraser’s Hill area, though not unusual, had grown in frequency and scale, disrupting life and traffic for up to 40 hours in one instance. 119 Landslides along the new access road to the hill forced its final closure in May 2002.120 Highlighting the risks of unfettered development projects, an editorial of the New Straits Times drew the Cabinet’s attention to ‘the urgency of this lifeand-death issue’ and proposed the creation of a task force to evaluate all completed and ongoing projects.121 The Federal government responded by tightening existing laws. Development in hill areas, defined as land above 150 m, was prohibited on gradients exceeding 25 degrees and EIAs, previously required only for projects exceeding 50 ha, became mandatory in all cases. A prohibition was also imposed on cutting slopes exceeding 35 degrees.122 These rules had validity within the Federal territory but elsewhere their enforcement was subject to the whim of State governments. LAW, ETHICS AND ACCOUNTABILIT Y

Poor State cooperation in EIA enforcement stemmed largely from misconception of the process as Federal interference. The Department of Environment (DOE) played a pivotal role in approving, rejecting or refining project design and location but had no State branches until the 1990s.123 It was thus unable to educate States about the critical function of EIAs for guaranteeing compliance with the NFP and the aims of sustainable development. Neither was it able to handle the heavy backlog of EIA reports, a situation which States readily took advantage of to commence projects before DOE approval. EPU’s 1993 National Conservation Strategy report identified a range of abuses in EIA enforcement. Recommended was proper scrutiny of all agencies and

KWells_book_4.fm Page 406 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

406

companies with respect to EIA procedures; guidelines and criteria of assessment; safeguards of confidentiality; and avoidance of conflicts of interests. 124 Hefty fines were deemed appropriate for individuals, companies or agencies engaged in land clearing, either without conducting EIA studies or failing to comply with their recommendations.125 Whereas State power in the discretionary exercise of EIA rules represents one aspect of the problem, environmental protection rests ultimately on commitment, based on ethical values both of a professional and civic order. As a critical study conducted by the Malayan Nature Society revealed, there were loopholes in EIA procedures that the law could not effectively plug. Although consultants were registered with the DOE, it was the developer who paid the consultants.126 Furthermore, the EIA requirement, which had previously excluded projects under 50 ha, allowed unscrupulous developers to circumvent the law by sub-dividing their development areas.127 Those consultants without a strong sense of moral and professional integrity could be tempted to write reports to satisfy their employers. Indeed, it was alleged that in 1995 not all consultants employed in development projects had been registered and screened by the DOE. Thus, the EIA was ‘only as good as the consultant’ and the measure of his professional integrity.128 In the forestry sector, PRFs have time and again been affected by the vested business interests of political actors enmeshed in intra-State and Federal–State rivalry. Such politically motivated State interventions in scientific planning resulted in demoralization within the forest service. Radical changes in the political economy, following Independence, have made the task of foresters formidable, particularly at the practical level of enforcement. Their multifaceted duties have extended beyond the boundaries of professional duty, impinging on highly politicized issues such as logging concessions. Hence, an appropriate reminder from FAO to foresters that ‘their own ethics conform to the highest standards expected of professionals in their society’.129 Unethical practices within the timber industry were encouraged partly by flawed fiscal policies and taxation. The undervaluation of the Malaysian dollar during the late 1970s and late 1980s, for example, gave log exporters a competitive edge but pushed harvesting beyond sustainable levels.130 Yet, rent capture did not increase significantly due to the prevalent system of undifferentiated royalties across species and premiums, fixed by the government rather than market-determined by competitive auctioning.131 Forest economists have argued that unstructured royalties, in combination with inappropriate selection systems, facilitated ‘mining’ of forest stands, causing more damage than necessary and the loss of revenue for forest recovery management.132 Furthermore, as long as licensing was based on State-level patronage, longer concessions, undermining the quick turnover in returns, remained unpalatable to both concessionaire and lessee. Short-term concessions proved a disincentive not only to private investment in reforestation and planting but also to reduced

KWells_book_4.fm Page 407 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Domestic Response to the New International Order: Rio and After

•

407

wastage through responsible harvesting and improved mill technology.133 Where the prices for wood and wood-based products have been kept artificially low to maintain global competitiveness, appropriate trade mechanisms are needed, incorporating the ethical values of equitable pricing and the shared cost of protecting the rain forest. A report of the World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development unequivocally singled out ethical failure as ‘the most readily perceived problem in the forest sector but the one least discussed in the literature and in national and international fora on forests’.134 Its pronouncement reiterated the conclusion arrived at by a team of foresters led by Duncan Poore that ‘technical constraints, although they exist, are much less important than those that are political, economic and social’.135 These problems have undermined ethical values, in the absence of which there can be no reform within the timber industry to guarantee the integrity of certification. Though the Malaysian timber exporters played a significant role in forcing national acceptance of certification, their stand was governed more by immediate market factors than a genuine concern with guaranteeing returns in the long term. Driven by the forces of supply and demand, exporters paid insufficient attention to fine-tuning the price mechanism to sustainability. The MTIB saw eco-labelling as a means of gaining a marketing advantage by earning a ‘green premium’, an idea that the EU was receptive to. Neither the MTIB nor the TEAM was seriously concerned with the long-term objective of lowering the depletion of the primary resource through higher pricing. Making light of the management problems, the timber industry declared that certification was just a way of reassuring consumers. But the FSC expected change, especially in logging practices, before endorsement of the Malaysian scheme.136 The MTIB, in the meantime, declared Malaysia and its growing downstream industries to be ‘poised to take advantage’ of the still expanding demand for timber, especially in the Asia-Pacific region. This meant not excluding markets such as China and North Korea, with less stringent eco-labelling requirements, despite their own comprehensive trade barriers to processed wood.137 Only Japan pledged to reduce, by 1999, these discriminatory tariffs.138 In the final count, the World Trade Organization (WTO), formed in 1994 as a result of the Uruguay Round of talks, became a price regulatory mechanism, putting the onus on politicians to forge a link between trade and sustainability. Sustainable development rules out the laissez faire economy of an earlier period. It demands the sharing of benefits and responsibility by the public and private sectors in the practice of sound forest harvesting and management. The Malaysian situation has demonstrated that policy enunciations, scientific and technical prescriptions and regulatory measures in themselves are insufficient for securing the protection of forests for their full range of goods and services. ‘The crucial key criterion in this respect,’ argued Bruenig, ‘is that the political and economic leaderships set examples of high ethical and moral standards them-

KWells_book_4.fm Page 408 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

408

selves.’139 Shortfalls in this respect effectively remain the most serious stumbling block in the Peninsula, where the forest economy forms an integral part of power brokering, particularly at State level. Access to timber as a major source of revenue has nourished traditional notions of patronage, linking political power and entrepreneurial wealth. There are limits to the extent to which national legislation, international accords, and the self-regulatory mechanism of timber certification can bring about the adoption of more responsible and ethical practices in the forest sector. In this regard, the emergence of public stewardship of forests, once the sole preserve of the Forest Department, is significant. Citizen participation in monitoring and influencing wise management of natural resources has proved indispensable in the context of timber politics, Federal-State rivalries and the absence of foolproof constitutional guarantees for environmental protection. The emergence of civil society in the forefront of biosphere protection, as testified by the Malaysian experience, is a signal event in modern history. NOTES 1 2

Secrett, ‘Friends of the Earth UK and the hardwood campaign’, p. 356. Agenda 21, Chapter 11, ‘Combating Deforestation’, makes the fundamental assumption that forests are a key to environmental protection and sustainable development, ‘Programme Areas’, A, UNCED, Rio de Janeiro, June 1992; Preamble, CBD, June 1992, Rio de Janeiro, Ratified, June 1994. 3 ‘Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of All Types of Forests’, Principle 2 (b); ‘The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development’, Principle 2, UNCED, Rio de Janeiro, June 1992, in The Earth Summit, pp. 112, 118. 4 National Forestry Policy, Clause 1 (i) & (iii); National Forestry Act, Clause 10 (in part); Blockhus et al. (eds), ‘Malaysia’, in Conserving Biological Diversity in Managed Tropical Forests, p. 49. 5 Collins, et al., The Conservation Atlas, p. 65. 6 Soepadmo, ‘Plant diversity of the Malesian tropical rainforest’, p. 30; Ahmad Zainal Mat Isa and R. H. Krezdorn, ‘The development towards sustainable forest management in Peninsular Malaysia’, in Chin Tuck Yuan, R.H. Krezdorn and Yong Teng Koon (eds), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Malaysian-German Sustainable Forest Management and Conservation Project in Peninsular Malaysia, 11–12 Feb. 1998, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: Forestry Dept., p. 5; Forestry Statistics, 1996, p. 18; MOSTE, Assessment of Biological Diversity in Malaysia, p. 55. Johor suffered the largest excisions of Wildlife Reserves. Between 1980 and 1993 it lost just under 37,000 ha, leaving 160,000 ha. Elagupillay, ‘Gazettement of protected areas in Peninsular Malaysia’, p. 17. 7 Forestry Statistics, Peninsular Malaysia, 2000, Forest Department, Kuala Lumpur, p. 3. 8 Soepadmo, ‘Plant diversity of the Malesian tropical rainforest’, pp. 31–32. On biodiversity accounting for Peninsular Malaysia, see EPU-WWFM, ‘Malaysian National Conservation Strategy’, vol. IV: ‘Natural Resource Accounting’, pp. 87–93. 9 Blockhus et al., ‘Malaysia’, pp. 49–50. 10 ‘Wetland Worries’, Star, 28 Dec. 1999. 11 The WIAP originated as Interwader, an NGO founded in 1983 for bird conservation, and was based in the University of Malaya with D.R. Wells as Honorary Chairman and D. Parish as Executive Director. In 1987 it was renamed the Asian Wetlands Bureau, the first regional NGO dedicated to addressing problems related to the conservation of wetlands for their ecological and economic goods and services. For more effective international coordination and management, in 1995 it became WIAP, the Asia-Pacific branch of Wetlands International (founded in the UK and now based in the Netherlands). 12 S.S. Yoga, ‘Perils of a lake called Chini’, Star, 20 April 1999.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 409 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Domestic Response to the New International Order: Rio and After

•

409

13 House of Lords, Select Committee of the European Communities on Tropical Forests, pp. 76–77. 14 F.S.P. Ng, ‘Conservation of biodiversity in national parks and protected areas’, in Proceedings of the International Conference on National Parks and Protected Areas, 13–15 Nov. 1989, Kuala Lumpur: Dept. of Wildlife and National Parks, 1989, p. 21. 15 Annual Report, 2000, p. 78. 16 Sections 11 & 12, NFA 1984. In the early 1990s, out of the total forest cover, PRF comprised around 77.5 per cent Production Forest and 20.22 per cent Protection Forest, with logging permitted in about 5 per cent of the latter. Kanta Kumari, Is Malaysian Forest Policy and Legislation Conducive to Multi-Use Management of Forest Resources? Norwich/London: Centre for Social and Economic Research in Global Environment, University of East Anglia/ University College, London, 1995, pp. 13–15. 17 Ibid., pp. 20–21. 18 Berger, Malaysia’s Forests, p. 132. 19 F.E. Putz, ‘A Survey of Virgin Jungle Reserves in Peninsular Malaysia’, Research Pamphlet, No. 73, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: FRI, 1978, pp. 7–8. 20 All four are located in the hills, on Berembun (Cameron Highlands), Maxwell’s Hill (Perak), Kedah Peak and Mount Ophir (Johor). MOSTE, Assessment of Biological Diversity in Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, 1997, Appendix 6, p. 175. 21 D. Tsuruoka and M. Vatikiotis, ‘Building on success: New development plan downplays ethnic targets’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 27 June 1991; Tsuruoka, ‘Cutting down to size’, 4 July 1991. 22 MOSTE, Assessment of Biological Diversity, p. 15. 23 ‘PM wants more details on degazetted forest reserves’, NST, 11 Jan. 1995. 24 Ibid. 25 More than 50 per cent of the KETANGAH area was considered unsuitable for oil palm, tobacco, cashew nut or coconut. See Table 6: Suitability of soils for agriculture in the Ketengah area, WWFM, ‘Conservation Strategy for Trengganu, 1982’. 26 Inventori Hutan Nasional III, Semenanjung Malaysia, 1990–92 [National Forest Inventory III, Peninsular Malaysia, 1990–92], Jabatan Perhutanan [Department of Forestry], Kuala Lumpur, 1992. 27 ‘PM wants more details on degazetted Forest Reserves’, NST, 11 Jan. 1995. 28 N. Gunalan and Sharif Haron, ‘11,000 ha of forest reserves degazetted’, NST, 9 Oct. 1995. 29 Editorial, ‘Preservation for posterity’, NST, 22 April 1994. 30 Forest Inventories I and II, in Vincent and Rozali, Environment and Development, p. 117. 31 In 1990, the cultivated area was 4.2 million ha, compared with 4.8 million ha of PFE. Vincent and Rozali, Environment and Development, p. 152; Inventori Hutan Nasional, III, 1991–1992. 32 ‘Forestry Department poses a master plan for land use’. Star, 24 Jan. 1991, quoted in Malayan Naturalist, 44, ii (1991), p. 9. 33 Poore et al., No Timber Without Trees, p. 11. 34 Wyatt-Smith, ‘Problems and prospects for natural management of tropical forests’, p. 8. 35 ITTO’s criteria is defined as: ‘management with regard to the production of a continuous flow of desired forest products and services, without undue reduction of its inherent values and future productivity, and without undesirable effects on the physical and social environment’. ITTO, ‘Criteria for the Measurement of Sustainable Tropical Forest Management’, ITTO Policy Development Series, No 3, Yokohama: ITTO, 1992. 36 Bruenig, Conservation and Management of Tropical Rainforests, p. 171. 37 J. Sayer, Address as Chairman of the Plenary Session of the Conference, in F.R. Miller and K.L. Adam (eds), Wise Management of Tropical Forests, Proceedings of the Oxford Conference on Tropical Forests, 30 March–1 April 1992, Oxford: Oxford Forestry Institute, 1992, p. viii. 38 Barbier et al., Tropical Timber Trade, p. 12. 39 House of Lords, Select Committee of the European Communities on Tropical Forests, p. 77. 40 J. Wyatt-Smith, Letter to the Editor, Forest Ecology and Management, 24 (1988) p. 222. 41 S. Appanah, G. Weinland, H. Bossel and H. Krieger, ‘Are tropical rain forests non-renewable? An inquiry through modelling’, Tropical Forest Science, 2 (1990) pp. 331–348; S. Appanah

KWells_book_4.fm Page 410 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

42

43 44 45

46 47

48 49 50 51

52 53

•

410

and G. Weinland, ‘Will the management systems for hill dipterocarp forests, stand up?’, Journal of Tropical Forest Science, 3 (1990) p. 148. Regeneration in the original stand of lowland forest was the basis for the 25–30 year cutting cycle adopted in the SMS, currently applied in hill forests. As similar levels of regeneration are not expected in the residual stands of hill forests following SMS logging, it is envisaged that a realistic cycle would be twice as long, if not longer. N. Manokaran, ‘Effect, 34 years later, of selective logging in the lowland dipterocarp forest at Pasoh, Peninsular Malaysia, and implications on present-day logging in the hill forests,’ in S.S. Lee, Y.M. Dan, I.D. Gauld and J. Bishop (eds), Conservation, Management and Development of Forest Resources, Workshop on Conservation Management and Forest Resources, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM, 1998 pp. 56, 58; Salleh and Baharudin, ‘Silvicultural practices in Peninsular Malaysia’, pp. 87–88. Wyatt-Smith, ‘Problems and prospects for natural management of tropical forests’, pp. 13, 15. EPU-WWFM,‘Malaysian National Conservation Strategy’, vol. II: ‘Administration’, p. 249. FAO, ‘Forestry and forestry industries development, Malaysia: A national forest inventory of Peninsular Malaysia’, FAO: DP/MAL/72/009.Tech. Rep. No. 5, 1973, Rome. Forests have been classified in the inventories according to the value of timber stocks. The categories include: ‘superior’, ‘good’ and ‘medium’ and ‘poor’ for Primary Forest, Logged Forest, Montane Forest, Peat Forest and Mangrove Forest. See Inventori Hutan Nasional III. R. De Milde, ‘Forest inventory and management system as part of the Forest Resource Conservation Programme’, FAO Aug. 1993, Project MAL/89/001, Field Document 1. Inventori Hutan Nasional II, Semenanjung Malaysia,1981–1982, [Second National Inventory of Peninsular Malaysia, 1981–1982], Unit Pengurusan, Jabatan Hutan, Ibu Pejabat [Forest Management Unit, Headquarters], 1987, Kuala Lumpur; S. Brown, A.J.R. Gillespie and A.E. Lugo, ‘Biomass of tropical forests of South and Southeast Asia’, Canadian Journal for Forest Research, 21 (1991) pp. 114–115. T.C. Whitmore, ‘Perspectives in tropical rain forest research’, in A. E. Lugo and C. Lowe (eds), Tropical Forests: Management and Ecology, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1995, pp. 400– 401; Cheng Li and S.S. Yoga, ‘Swallowed by economic concerns’, Star, 19 Oct. 1999. Ng, ‘Ecological principles of tropical lowland rain forest conservation’, p. 360. S. Appanah, ‘Management of natural forests’, in S. Appanah and J.M. Turnbull (eds), A Review of Dipterocarps, Taxonomy, Ecology and Silviculture, Jakarta: CIFOR, 1998, pp. 144–145. P. Ashton has recommended the adoption of a minimum standard of 200 mature individuals per species as an adequate breeding population. Ng differs, on the basis of D. Poore’s study of a 23-ha area in Jengka, Pahang, where out of 377 species, 307 species or 81 per cent were represented by only 1–10 mature individuals. He considers it ‘impossible to make any reasonable projection for a minimum area that would be genetically self-perpetuating’ for the entire community contained, including rare species. Ng, ‘Ecological principles of conservation’, p. 363. Bruenig, ‘Deforestation and its ecological implications for the rain forest in South East Asia’, p. 18. The following figures show the decline in the output of medium-hardwoods. 1971–85

1998

3.2–8.5 per cent

8.4 per cent

medium-hardwoods

38.7–53.9 per cent

27.5 per cent

light-hardwoods

41.3–53.3 per cent

63.5 per cent

heavy-hardwoods

Source: PTP, 1985, 1998. 54 Manokaran, ‘Effect, 34 years later, of selective logging in the lowland dipterocarp forest at Pasoh’, p. 58. In 1961, the log input to sawmills of keruing and red meranti was 18.6 per cent and 44.4 per cent respectively. Wyatt-Smith noted that by this time much of the area formerly covered by meranti-keruing had been cleared for agriculture so that most of the red meranti volume came from ridge-top forest. Wyatt-Smith, Manual of Silviculture, I, p. III-8/2. 55 Appanah, ‘Management of natural forests’, p. 145.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 411 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Domestic Response to the New International Order: Rio and After 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68

69 70 71

72 73 74

75

76 77

78 79

•

411

Salleh and Baharudin, ‘Silvicultural practices in Peninsular Malaysia’, pp. 85, 87. Chin, ‘Managing Malaysia’s forests for sustainable production’, p. 5. Wyatt-Smith, ‘Problems and prospects for natural management of tropical forests’, p. 19 National Forestry Act 1984, Clause 10 (1 & 2). Vincent, ‘Timber trade, economics and tropical forest management’, pp. 258–259. Tang Hon Tat, ‘Problems and strategies for regenerating dipterocarp forests’, p. 38. MOSTE, Malaysia, Initial National Communication, Submitted to the UNFCCC, July 2000, p. 61. NST,15 May 1995. Appanah, ‘Management of natural forests’, p. 143. Ibid. Logging contractors in 2000 were estimated to earn an average M$100 per 1.4 cu m for felling and landing. Interview, Aziz Saad, private sector forester, Aug. 2000, Kuala Lumpur. Vincent and Rozali, Environment and Development in a Resource-Rich Economy, p. 128. Reppeto and Gillis, Public Policies and the Misuse of Forest Resources, pp. 396–397. It was argued, for example, that as Europe becomes more self-sufficient in wood, more North American exports from the west coast, with the probability of supplements from Russia, will be directed to the Pacific Rim, reducing demand for tropical hardwoods. R.A. Sedjo, ‘Local timber production and global trade: The environmental implications of forestry trade’, in W.L. Adamowicz, P. Boxall, M.K. Luckert, W.E. Phillips and W.A. White (eds), Forestry, Economics and the Environment, Wallingford: CAB International, 1996, pp. 62–67. Appanah and Khoo, ‘Introduction’, Proceedings of the 14th Commonwealth Conference, p. 3. Apart from KPKKT, incorporated in 1980, other subsidiary companies of the Golden Pharos Group include Pesama Sawmill, Pesaka Sawmill and Permint Plywood Mill in Terengganu. M. Scott, ‘The disappearing forest’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 12 Jan. 1989. Another sustainable forest management project, the Malaysian–Canadian Bentong Model Forest Project, initiated in 1995 along ITTO guidelines and covering a 98,000-ha plot in Bentung, Pahang, was abandoned due to insufficient funding. ‘Khalid: Pahang all for sustainable forest concept’, NST, 14 June 1995; ‘Malaysian–Canadian model forest project in Bentong shelved’, NST, 23 Sept. 1996; Haron Abu Hassan and Mohd Dasuki Mohd Nor, ‘Sustainable forest management in Malaysia’, pp. 38–40. Mahmad Rasid Ibrahim, ‘The development towards sustainable management in the SFDs’, in Chin Tuck Yuan et al. (eds), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Malaysian-German Sustainable Forest Management and Conservation Project in Peninsular Malaysia, p. 10. The 43,000 ha KPKKT concession included also the Cerul and Besul Forest Reserves in Kemaman. The Project Steering Committee was chaired by the Director-General of Forestry. A Technical Working Committee for Project implementation was established, chaired by the State Director of Forestry. The duration of the project was scheduled to cover: Phase I: Oct. 1994– Sept. 1997; Phase II: Oct. 1997–Sept. 2000; Phase III: Oct. 2000–Sept 2004. Chin Tuck Yuan, ‘Overview of the Malaysian-German Project on sustainable forest management and conservation in Peninsular Malaysia’, in Chin Tuck Yuan, et al. (eds), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Malaysian-German Sustainable Forest Management and Conservation Project in Peninsular Malaysia, pp.1–6. Ahmad Zainal and Krezdorn, ‘The development towards sustainable forest management in Peninsular Malaysia’, p. 10. ‘Managing the change: From single use timber production to multiple-use forest resources management for sustainable development’, An overview of the Malaysian-German Technical Cooperation Project in the Forestry Sector, German Technical Cooperation/Forest Department, 1994. Ahmad Zainal and Krezdorn, ‘The development towards sustainable forest management in Peninsular Malaysia’, p. 25. A FRIM socio-economic survey of 145 households living near the KPKKT concession area, Dungun district, Terengganu, showed that 58 per cent of working members were engaged in eaglewood collection. Together with other forest related activities, it generated 66 per cent of household income. See Mohd Parid Mamat and Lim Hin Fui, ‘The importance of gaharu harvesting to household economy’, Poster presented at the seminar on ‘Medicinal and Aromatic Plants’, 24–25 July 2001, Abstract, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM, 2001, p. 42.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 412 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

412

80 See R. Kiew and Hood Salleh, ‘The future of rattan collecting as a source of income for Orang Asli communities’, in S. Appanah. F.S.P. Ng and Roslan Ismail (eds), Malaysian Forestry and Forest Products Research, Proceedings of a Conference, 3–4 Oct. 1990, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM, 1991, pp. 126–129; Woon Weng Chuen and Poh Lye Yong, The Economic Value of Parkia speciosa (Petai), Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: Forest Department/FRIM, 1998, pp. 65–67; M. Lockman, M. Sirin, Poh Lye Yong, Mohd Shah Wahid, Hj. Othman and Sarani Judi, ‘Distribution of bamboo and the potential development of the bamboo industry in Peninsular Malaysia’, in Wan Razali Wan Mohd and Aminuddin Mohammed (eds), National Bamboo Seminar I, 2–4 Nov. 1992: Proceedings, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM, 1993, pp. 6– 19. For Orang Asli trade in forest produce in Perak during the 1990s, see Lim Hin Fui, Orang Asli: Forest and Development, Malayan Forest Records, 43, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM, 1997, pp. 26–29. 81 For a summary of the problems involved in instituting Intellectual Property Rights, see MOSTE, Assessment of Biological Diversity, pp. 148–150. 82 For a survey of potential genetic resources, see L.G. Saw and Raja Barizan Sulaiman (compiler), Directory of Plant Resources in Malaysia, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM, 1991; Mohd Osman, Mansor Puteh and Aminuddin Mohamad, ‘Potential crops from the wild’, in A. Zaki (ed.), Prospects in Biodiversity Prospecting, Proceedings of a Workshop, 9–10 Nov. 1994, Kuala Lumpur: Genetics Society of Malaysia and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 1995. 83 Recent years have seen other collaborative research and management programmes involving local institutions and international organizations. Other than ITTO and ODA inputs on sustainable forest management, DANCED (Danish Co-operation for Environment and Development) assisted with an integrated management plan for Johor’s mangrove forests. It also drew up a plan for upgrading the management of the Kerau Game Reserve, under the DWNP-DANCED project, with a M$7 million-grant from the Danish government. In Perak and Selangor, SIDA (Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency) assisted with aerial photographs and satellite data for computerized planning and management of mangrove and peat swamp forests. This complemented the EU’s programme of mapping and GIS for sustainable management. Furthermore, Japan was involved in the study of forest dynamics, and the Netherlands in documenting a comprehensive inventory of plant resources. Zul Mukhshar, ‘Malaysia’s role as a leader in tropical forest management,’ p. 16; Annual Report, Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP), 1997, p. 82. For a progress report, see www.forestry.gov.my/homepage/engl/project.html. 84 Bruenig, Conservation and Management of Tropical Rainforests, p. 246. 85 Salleh and Manokaran, ‘Mechanism for prioritisation and management of tropical forest for conservation’, pp. 259, 261. 86 Pang Hin Yue, ‘Meeting the timber deadline’, NST, 21 May 1996. 87 Rosli Zakaria and Sarban Singh, ‘RM1.27 billion needed for sustainable forests’, NST, 24 April 1996. 88 ‘Time for Timber Council to review role’, NST, 30 Dec. 1995. As against the figure of M$2 billion which the Ministry of Trade and Industry claimed was needed, Salleh Mohd Nor quoted a much lower figure of M$1.27 billion. 89 The Malayan Timber Council was previously the Malaysian Timber Industry Development Council (MTIDC). Apart from countering the anti-tropical timber campaign, it is the task of MTC to address the problem of raw material inadequacies and provide assistance in reforestation, training and market promotion. 90 ‘Time for Timber Council to review role’, NST, 30 Dec. 1995. 91 D.P. Dykstra and R. Heinrich, ‘FAO Model Code for Forest Harvesting Practice’, DP/ MAL/ 75-12, Rome: FAO, 1996, pp. 1–5. 92 C. Hong, ‘Loggers pressing for better handling of fund’, NST, 24 Dec. 1995. The export levy on sawn timber was between M$40 and $250 per cu m. 93 Seventh Malaysia Plan, p. 589. 94 ‘Firm defends plan to develop Janda Baik forest reserve’, NST, 8 Jan. 1995. 95 Juhaidi Yean Abdullah, Sarban Singh and Saiful Mahdahir Nordin, ‘Concern over massive forest project in Janda Baik’, New Sunday Times, 8 Jan 1995. 96 ‘Where farmers fail to treat environs gingerly’, NST, 8 Jan. 1995. 97 Juhaidi Yean Abdullah, Sarban Singh and Saiful Mahadhir Nordin, ‘Concern over massive forest project in Janda Baik’, New Sunday Times, 8 Jan. 1995.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 413 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Domestic Response to the New International Order: Rio and After

•

413

98 ‘Pembalakan haram: Orang Asli jangan terbabit’, Wartan, 2 Sept. 1995. 99 Juhaidi et al., ‘Concern over massive forest project in Janda Baik’, New Sunday Times, 8 Jan. 1995. 100 T. Emmanuel, ‘Farmers continue to clear land illegally, causing landslides’, NST, 3 April 1999; EPU, Study on the Development of Hill Stations, Final Report, 2001, vol. I, p. 5. 101 Fears deepened when 6 years later a landslide in Taman Hill View, Selangor, obliterated a bungalow, killing 8 people. 102 ‘Probe illegal logging: NGOs’, Sun, 6 July 1995; ‘Cause of disaster…,’ NST, 11 July 1995. 103 ‘Tragedi bongkar pelbagai’, Berita Harian, 6 July 1995. 104 ‘Advice on landslide probe’, Business Times, 7 July 1995; ‘WWF minta hentikan spekulasi punca tragedi’, Berita Harian, 7 July 1995. 105 ‘WWF’s report on highland growth issues’, Business Times, 6 July 1995. 106 ‘Pembinaan jalan di tanah tinggi wajar dihenti’, Berita Harian, 13 July 1995. 107 ‘Pencemaran akibat pembangunan tanah: Kesan makin serius’, Mingguan Malaysia, 16 July 1995. 108 ‘Highland highway will destroy catchment area’, Star, 8 July 1995. 109 ‘WWF filmlet on highland forests’, Business Times, 12 July 1995. Film was an effective medium used by international rain forest campaigners. ‘The Emerald Forest’, produced by FoE is one example. 110 ‘Malaysia’s highlands under threat’, NST, 11 July 1995; ‘Highland highlights’, Sun, 18 July 1995. 111 ‘Kenyataan Daim harus dipandang serius’, Utusan Malaysia, 8 July 1995. 112 ‘12 kawasan dikesan alami hakisan teruk’, Utusan Melaysia, 8 July 1998. A landslide in Cameron Highlands on 5 Dec. 1991 resulted in the death of 2 people and affected the lives of thousands. ‘Kerajaan disaran kaji semula aktiviti pembangunan’, Utusan Malaysia, 7 July 1995. 113 ‘Town and Country Planning Act, 1976’, Laws of Malaysia, Act 172; 1995 (Amended), A.933/95, clauses 21B and 35. There was also provision for the Town and Country Planning Department to provide advisory and managerial services to the Federal, State and Local authorities. Seventh Malaysia Plan, p. 598. 114 ‘Storm clouds in the highlands’, The Sun, 18 July 1995. 115 E. Tan, ‘Clearing of Lojing forest causes siltation woes’, 13 May 1999; ‘Damage to highland areas detected’, Star, 13 May 1999. 116 S.S. Yoga, ‘Perils of a lake called Chini’, Star, 20 April 1999. 117 ‘Fraser’s Hill project causing environmental woes’, NST, 23 March 1999; ‘Barriers to Buffers’, Star, 6 July 1999. 118 Cheng and Yoga, ‘Swallowed by economic concerns’, Star, 19 Oct. 1999. 119 ‘Landslides at Fraser’s Hill halt traffic for 40 hrs’, NST, 3 April 1999. 120 Due to construction problems related to landslides and cracks, the road was operational only during May 2001–May 2002. 121 ‘Landslides: Cabinet must be firm’, NST, 19 May 1999. 122 Meng Yew Choong and S.S. Yoga, ‘Slip sliding away’, Star, 28 Dec. 1999. 123 EPU-WWFM, ‘Malaysian National Conservation Strategy’, vol. I: ‘Executive Summary and the Strategy’, p. 17. 124 Ibid., pp. 17–19. 125 Ibid., ‘Malaysian National Conservation Strategy’, vol. I, p.19. 126 Kiew Bong Heang, ‘Environmental Impact Assessment: Ideals, realities and ethics’, Malayan Naturalist, 50, i (1996) pp. 30–31. 127 Kua Kia Soong, ‘Bukit Sungai Putih development: Many questions still not answered’, NST, 4 March 1999. 128 Kiew Bong Heang, ‘The highland road’, Malayan Naturalist, 48, iv (1994) p. 25. 129 ‘Timber harvesting and the problem of deforestation’, Forest Harvesting Bulletin (FAO) 4, i (1994) p. 2. 130 Contrastingly, in Indonesia where the Rupia was overvalued, there was no export incentive. Gillis: Malaysia: Public policies and the tropical forest’, pp. 160–161 131 Though auctioning logging concessions is desirable, the inaccessibility of sites in many instances and the heterogeneity of the tropical rain forest are seen as factors that militate

KWells_book_4.fm Page 414 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

132

133 134 135 136 137 138

139

•

414

against pre-auction assessment by potential bidders. Repetto and Gillis, ‘Conclusion: Findings and policy implications’, in Public Policies and the Misuse of Forest Resources, p. 398. Royalty, though based on species, is essentially undifferentiated as timber species are classified broadly into a small number of groups which do not reflect the actual value of individual species. Furthermore, though royalty is nominally based on 10 per cent of the current log price, in 1990 only 5 States had upgraded their royalty rates since 1972. J. Vincent, ‘Rent capture and the feasibility of tropical forest management’, Land Economics, 66, ii (1990) pp. 212–213; Vincent,‘Timber trade economics and tropical forest management’, pp. 255–256. Vincent and Rozali, Environment and Development in a Resource-Rich Economy, pp. 128–129. Emil Salim and Ullsten, Our Forests, Our Future, p. 48. Poore, et al., No Timber Without Trees, p. 8. B. Gilley, ‘Green light in the forest’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 7 Sept. 2000. ‘A pliant sector’, The Edge, 19 Sept. 1994, p. 13. See ITTO, Annual Review...1995, Table 1: ‘Timber Trade barriers in ITTO consumer countries’, p. 19. In the case of the developed countries, tariffs on processed wood products decreased significantly through GATT-related negotiations. J. Vincent, ‘Timber trade, economics, and tropical forest management’, in R. B. Primack and T.E. Lovejoy (eds), Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Southeast Asian Rainforests, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995, pp. 242–243. Bruenig, Conservation and Management of Tropical Rainforests, p. 243.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 415 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

CONCLUSION

Nature for Nation [The naturalist] looks upon every species of animal and plant now living as the individual letters which go to make up one of the volumes of our earth’s history; and, as a few lost letters may make a sentence unintelligible, so the extinction of the numerous forms of life which the progress of cultivation invariably entails will necessarily render obscure this invaluable record of the past. It is, therefore, an important object [to preserve them.] … If this is not done, future ages will certainly look back upon us as a people so immersed in the pursuit of wealth as to be blind to higher considerations. – Alfred Russel Wallace1

FOREST R Y AND DE VE LOPMENT

he conventional assumption that development in the moist tropics represents disengagement with the forest is contradicted by the Malaysian experience, where forests have remained at the heart of the political economy. They have continued to serve a range of uses, with a change in emphasis at different phases of historical development. The preeminence of non-timber forest produce in the traditional economy gave way to timber in the colonial and post-colonial periods, with the realization by the end of the twentieth century of the importance of multiple-use forests for achieving the goals of development. Though modern forestry originated in Europe, it evolved in the Peninsula within a specific environmental, political and cultural context. Classical European concepts of forestry, based on mechanistic regimes for fostering even-aged single-species stands for industrial output, could not be replicated in the moist tropics. Moreover, management practices for wood production co-evolved with tropical ecology, emphasizing the crucial function of forests for protecting hydrological regimes and stemming high levels of erosion. As all forests from colonial times were state-controlled, forestry functioned as a vital arm of colonial territorialization and an indispensable socio-political agent. In the long term, by enforcing control over forests, colonial forestry bolstered the nominal sovereignty of the Sultans within the Federation. This was carried forward into the post-colonial era, establishing the basis for State over Federal power in forest management.

T

KWells_book_4.fm Page 416 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

416

Forestry in contemporary Malaysia continues to be dominated by the legacy of Federal–State relations, but with a significant difference. Under colonial rule, State control over the forests, effectively under the influence of British Residents and Advisers, was weighted in favour of the Federal authority. Even after decentralization in 1935, the centripetal loyalties of colonial administrators remained pivotal to forestry’s parastatal role. This position changed radically after Independence, when the Chief Ministers superseded the British Residents and Advisers as State executive heads and, though predominantly members of the ruling Alliance Party, were potentially more partial to guarding State interests and autonomy. Even though the federal principle of the 1948 constitution, described as ‘nearly unitary in legislative powers’, was adopted under the 1957 constitution of Independent Malaya/Malaysia, State administration was decentralized in a number of areas, including forest management. State control over land, a potent source of political power, undermined both the influence and esprit de corps of forestry as a central agency for policy and technical management. Following World War II, the influence of the Chief Forest Conservator/ Adviser in negotiating land use had been swept aside in the face of widespread landlessness, a problem heightened by the Emergency. With no land use policy in place, neither forestry’s Interim Forest Policy nor the message of land use morality it preached during the 1950s succeeded in enhancing the status of forests in development policy. The 1971 Land Classification Survey that assigned forests the lowest category of land use remains unchanged, notwithstanding the abiding consensus among foresters that an integrated land use policy is critical for sustaining the forest’s full range of goods and services.2 Deficiencies in long-term planning, fundamental to forest management, have proved the Achilles heel of Malaysia’s development. In the absence of federal control over land, Malaysia’s race to achieve ‘developed’ status spurred unbridled land concessions for logging and agricultural conversion. Politics, ‘crony capitalism’ and flawed policies relating to the timber industry – often supported during the early decades of Independence by international agencies – widened the gap between depletion and regeneration. As lowland forests shrank and logging moved into the hills, foresters sought appropriate adaptations in harvesting regimes and techniques. But the speed of land conversion, spurred by the spectacular rise in the timber export industry entrenched in vested political interests, compromised the regulatory safeguards needed for minimizing erosion and biological loss associated with hill logging and land conversion. By the 1970s, agricultural conversion caused forest exploitation to outstrip the biological, technical and resource capacity for environmentally sound harvesting and regeneration. In fact, doubts concerning sustainable production prevalent among colonial foresters were not relieved by post-war technical and scientific advances that merely intensified logging. According to calculations based on figures for the period 1971–89, for every cu m of timber harvested 0.43 cu m elsewhere in the country was lost to deforestation and 1.28 cu m to

KWells_book_4.fm Page 417 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature for Nation

•

417

degradation.3 Forestry’s problem of sustainability was compounded by the cost and complexity of sivilcultural treatment, which meant that in 1989, for example, only 1 million ha, or about 40 per cent out of 2.4 million ha of logged forest had been treated.4 The 1978 National Forestry Policy and the 1984 Forestry Act came too late in the day and left the National Land Council without the necessary power to regulate land clearance in accordance with actual agricultural needs. Despite safeguards and laws to minimize the impact of logging, the culture of noncompliance remained a huge problem.5 Not least, the poor coordination of related actors and interests within the forest sector impeded holistic forest management. Shortfalls in planning, compounded in some instances by tensions in Federal–State relations, hampered reconciliation of principles with practice. Indeed, the Peninsula’s experience suggests a cautious approach in the ongoing devolution of forest management in the Philippines and Indonesia. 6 Since Independence, spectacular economic growth has been matched by a sharp decline in the Peninsula’s forest cover, from 9.6 million ha or 73 per cent of the land area in 1956, to 5.9 million ha or 44 per cent in 1999–2000. 7 This included the de-gazetting of prime lowland forest. Between 1978 and 1994, for example, almost 1.4 million ha of largely lowland Forest Reserves were degazetted, against some 1.7 million ha of new gazettings.8 The latter comprised largely fragmented, logged-over hill forests, set aside as unsuitable for agricultural conversion and of reduced biodiversity. By 1999, a mere 0.38 million ha of State Land Forest was left, which meant that the PRF was virtually the only remaining forest area. Out of this, less than 700,000 ha or 5.2 per cent of the total land area was dedicated exclusively to parks and reserves.9 GOVER NMENT AND ENV IRONMENTALISM

Originating in the wildlife preservation initiative during the inter-war period, the conservation movement in the Peninsula assumed a discrete identity within post-World War II global environmentalism. It demonstrated a growing consciousness of nature as common heritage and was informed by wider issues of national development. Although, initially, criticism of official policies and projects by environmental NGOs was perceived as anti-development, the Federal government was not averse to using selected issues to curb the excesses of rulers and political actors at State level. The press took advantage of the freedom it enjoyed on these occasions to widen public information and support for NGO advocacy in a media culture generally perceived to be state controlled. 10 In the main, relations between the government and environmental NGOs improved over time and were less confrontational than elsewhere in the region.11 Some of the more moderate NGOs like the MNS, built upon the colonial tradition of official sponsorship for natural history and incorporated within their leadership senior bureaucrats and scientists from the government service, universities and statutory bodies.12 Unable in their official capacity to comment

KWells_book_4.fm Page 418 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

418

on politically sensitive development agendas and projects, conservation-minded senior government servants and scientists from research and academic institutions were able to work through NGOs to establish informal channels of communication with government planning agencies. This moderate strategy of working with the Federal government helped dispel initial distrust and facilitated MNS’s input into national environmental policy and legislation. WWFM built parallel collaboration on conservation strategies with State and national agencies. Not least, the legal and scientific expertise within the more radical Sahabat Alam Malaysia, which official censorship could not easily challenge, lent vigour to Malaysian environmental advocacy. Faced with large-scale logging and forest conversion for agriculture under the New Economic Policy, conservation advocacy targeted the designation of an agreed minimum quota of forest area as TPAs for biodiversity conservation and recreation. Simultaneously, NGOs, particularly the more vocal, monitored development projects and, by focusing on specific issues, drew public attention to weaknesses in policies and law enforcement. By garnering the support of the expanding urban middle class, NGOs and the press widened the base of public participation in the environmental discourse. NEW US ES, NEW VALUES

By the end of the twentieth century, traditional dependence on the forests for livelihoods had largely disappeared. Nonetheless, expectations of an improved quality of life engendered new perceptions of nature. ‘The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development’ is premised on modern society’s claim to a safe and healthy environment. Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.13

The Seventh Malaysia Plan (1996–2000) resonated the same commitment ‘to achieve a clean, safe, healthy and productive environment for both present and future generations’.14 Forests, once perceived as antithetical to human progress, were acknowledged as integral to an holistic human landscape. NGOs were able to capitalize on the government’s environmental rhetoric for gaining its cooperation on some occasions and avoiding its censure at other times. Pursuit of health and recreation across the ethnic spectrum of the burgeoning middle class created an unprecedented interest in the amenity and recreational value of forests.15 Recreational parks offered States a means of winning public support and extending the range of services of biologically important areas in compliance with national policy.16 The increase in the number of Forest Recreational Areas, from just 23 in the 1980s to 74 in 1994 and 95 by 2000, attested to the demand for green spaces.17 In Selangor, in particular, with a population approaching 2.5 million by 1993, the existing 29 per cent of PFE was insufficient for meeting water and amenity services.18 By 1999 lessons learned from re-

KWells_book_4.fm Page 419 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature for Nation

•

419

curring water crises, partly through indiscriminate logging, led to the gazetting of 42,940 ha of PRF in the State as water catchment.19 Diminishing water supply for urban expansion, particularly in the highdensity Kelang Valley, became a hotly debated public issue.20 Recognizing protection for water catchments as crucial, a Water Resource Council was formed, headed by the Prime Minister. Urban water demand, exceeding the capacity of integrated water management,21 led to the construction of the Sungai Selangor Dam, 5 km east of Kuala Kubu Baharu. Projected for completion in 2005, it is expected to provide over a million litres of clean water daily for domestic and industrial use in the Kelang Valley.22 Though the severity of recurrent water crises provided a strong case for the Dam, there was wide public awareness and concern about its potential environmental impact. Its location near Ampang Peca raised the spectre among residents of the 1883 flood that buried the old town of Kuala Kubu (see p.154). Consequences of the impoundment will include inundation of parts of the Hulu Selangor and the Bukit Kutu Forest Reserves. This represents loss of lowland forest relics, the breeding ground of birds and other organisms, and believed to be especially important for sustaining unstable populations on the sub-montane slopes.23 The impoundment will also reduce river flow. The effects on the lower reaches of the Sungai Selangor could affect the mangrove ecosystem. Damage to the riverine berembang (Sonneratia caseolaris) trees, inhabited by the world-renowned kelip-kelip or firefly (Pteroptyx spp.) at Kampung Kuantan, would undermine a major tourist attraction. Apart from highlighting the importance of environmental stewarding, the Selangor Dam construction drew unprecedented public attention to the displacement of Orang Asli by development projects.24 Temuan plaintiffs from Dengkil, Selangor, lost 15.39 ha of land in 1995 to highway construction, and the High Court ruling that upheld their claim in May 2002, was a landmark victory. 25 Public sympathy for the plight of the Temuan portrayed changing perceptions of the aboriginal communities as part and parcel of civil society, with equitable claims to natural resources. The Temuan issue and public discourse on the Sungai Selangor Dam were clear reminders to policy makers and planners of the need for greater socio-environmental sensitivity in development planning. 26 PO ORER BUT WISER?

Malaysia’s endorsement of Agenda 21 as part of its commitment to sustainable development reinforced the ideology of ‘Vision 2020’, the target set for achieving ‘fully-developed-nation’ status. In seeking mechanisms for translating policy objectives, the government turned to environmental-NGO expertise and cooperation. First, WWFM, with an impressive track record of drawing up State conservation strategies, was commissioned by the Economic Planning Unit of the Prime Minister’s Department to formulate a National Conservation Strategy (NCS).27 Completed in 1993, it proposed among other reforms a constitutional

KWells_book_4.fm Page 420 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

420

amendment for a blanket commitment giving each and every individual the ‘right’ to a clean and healthy environment.28 At the next stage of government–NGO collaboration, responding to Article 6 of the CBD, MOSTE commissioned a Country Study on Biological Diversity (CSBD).29 The National Steering Committee on Biodiversity (NSCB) that headed the project represented government institutions as well as environmental NGOs.30 The 1997 NSCB report drew attention to two fundamental areas for reform repeatedly highlighted by foresters and conservation agencies. First, it identified the need for more holistic land and environmental management. The absence of a ‘single central authority’ for land administration was regarded as a major setback that left maintenance of reserves for biological conservation to the decision of individual States.31 The report recognized a similar lack of provision for integrated management in environmental legislation that related to specific sectors only.32 The NSCB’s second recommendation was for greater effort towards the preservation of key environments and genetic resources.33 For the general purposes of amenity, it urged doubling the area of TPAs to meet the internationally recognized 10 per cent minimum of national land area.34 Linked with this aim was the proposal for drawing States into the CBD agenda through promoting biological inventories as part and parcel of a coordinated programme for sustainable development.35 Also proposed was amendment of the 1980 National Parks Act, subjecting de-gazetting to both State and Federal approval. 36 In the negotiations at Rio, Malaysia stoutly defended sovereign control over natural resources and ruled out international interventions in managing them as part of a world heritage (see pp. 371–372). By this process, it inadvertently reinforced State autonomy over forests. As the situation stands, the lack of a legislative mechanism to seek State compliance with matters relating to land undermines federal responsibility over the inter-related sectors relevant to environmental and forest protection. In constitutional terms, Malaysia’s international treaty obligations under the Rio Convention, albeit non-binding, may qualify Parliament to take advantage of Clause (1) (a) of Article 76 of the Federal Constitution, hitherto untested, to make appropriate rules or legislation overriding State power.37 Notwithstanding, Federal-State cooperation within the spirit of the Federation has remained the preferred alternative for achieving the goals of environmental protection. The NSCB’s proposed reforms are yet to be implemented and the National Parks Act remains a dead letter because of the reluctance of State governments to relinquish land for nationally protected areas. There is fear of more degazetting and scepticism over the Federal government’s capacity to secure State compliance with the nation’s international commitment to conservation. One such example is Malaysia’s obligation apropos the Ramsar Convention on ‘Wetlands of International Importance’, ratified in 1994. Tasik Bera, ‘the swamp of changing colours’ and constituting one of Peninsular Malaysia’s few natural

KWells_book_4.fm Page 421 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature for Nation

•

421

inland waters, was added to Ramsar’s list of protected sites.38 Yet, the forest hinterland has since been cleared and the lake’s status remains insecure. The dilemma of reconciling production and protection, a core feature of tropical forestry, has been made vastly more complex since Independence. The contributory factors were the country’s emergence as a major exporter of tropical timber and the politicization of forest management, with a reciprocal loss of forestry’s influence. Now that the strategy of trade sanctions has been abandoned by the international community as counterproductive, 39 the government bears an international obligation to pursue improved harvesting practices to meet the criteria for certification. The efficacy of timber certification for balancing biodiversity maintenance with sustainable production cannot be guaranteed. Nonetheless, certification, if properly managed and supported by fair pricing, can provide an incentive for State enforcement to adopt more ethical and sounder harvesting practices.40 Ongoing changes in the domestic economy may also assist reform within the forest industry, consistent with environmentally sympathetic development. The decreasing availability of forest land for conversion to agriculture, the shortage of agricultural labour and the abundance of idle land has slowed down the pace of land conversion and timber harvesting, with a shift in emphasis to in situ development under integrated resource management.41 The Sixth Malaysia Plan (1991–95) targeted integrating forestry with agriculture in rural development, promoting ‘forests-for-people’ activities for an improved quality of life.42 Similarly, the National Agricultural Policy (1998–2010) proposed mitigating the environmental and social costs of mega plantations by incorporating animal rearing and the planting of forest trees, rattan, bamboo and medical plants. 43 The promotion of socially and environmentally congenial rural landscapes supports WWFM’s earlier recommendation for planting 40–80 m strips of semi-wild vegetation, including fruit trees surrounding the blocks of tree crops, for their utilitarian and aesthetic value.44 Such biological niches, apart from offering scenic diversity and recreational potential, provide corridors for the dispersal of wildlife and can assist pest control by harbouring, for instance, owls and hawks, important for the extermination of rats in oil palm. 45 Malaysia’s substantially reduced forest capital, the uncertainties of sustainable logging and changing values and expectations among its citizens point to a return to the non-timber value of forests.46 Forest botany has entered a new era of exploration for genetic resources, encouraged by the range of incentives for biodiversity conservation, framed by Articles 8(j) and 15 of the CBD.47 Apart from national claims on intellectual property rights, indigenous communities stand to gain from ‘benefit sharing’ arrangements where they make available their knowledge for identifying and protecting wild genetic resources for biotechnology.48 The collection of medicinal herbs and other NTFP to meet rising market demand49 offers improved opportunities for the survival of the Orang Asli as a discrete component within a multi-ethnic society. Such alternative

KWells_book_4.fm Page 422 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

422

sources of income, by reinstating these people in their historical role within international commerce and biological exploration, could compensate for the scarcity of land for rotational swiddens.50 Under the CBD, multiple-use forests offer other potential benefits to the nation in the form of payments for environmental services. Incorporated into the Kyoto protocol of the 1993 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), carbon sequestration is especially relevant to forest regeneration and reforestation in the Malaysian context. Though green cover in the form of cash crop and timber plantations can sequester carbon, natural forests with their characteristic floristic diversity provide a proportionately far greater interactive surface area.51 Environmental protection has lent ‘development’ a more profound meaning than just material growth. The concept of sustainable management remains largely notional and is even seen by some as a tool for state and corporate leaders ‘to pursue development in the form of microeconomic growth’.52 Management regimes are often poorly enforced and are less than ‘scientific’ because of inaccuracies of data, calculation and prediction and, not least, the biological constraints on manipulating tropical rain forests. However, conceived as a strategy for integrated development, sustainability provides a broad policy framework for wise resource use. Forestry’s commitment today to environmentally sustainable development in response to society’s changing needs and perceptions is substantially different from its earlier dedication to timber production and catchment protection. The associated discourse on tropical forest conservation has moved nature into the realm of international politics, highlighting its value as a national and global heritage. The transformation of human-forest relations, informed by issues of environmental degradation and resource depletion, has revolutionized the concept of forest stewardship, once the concern largely of foresters. As of the late twentieth century, capitalism’s challenge to the forests is being increasingly countered by the claims of civil society to a stake in their management. Jeffrey McNeely reminds us: As non-product benefits like biodiversity become more important to urban citizens, the social system (such as public interest groups) and the political system (including new legislation, environmental impact assessments, greater public involvement in decision-making, more detailed regulations and reorganization of forestry agencies) inevitably will become a more prominent part of forest management.53

In Malaysia, where socio-political and constitutional constrains have emasculated forestry’s influence on development policy, civil society’s stewardship offers the best chance for wise use of the remaining forests. The Malaysian economic miracle and the emergence of an articulate middle class have lent environmental discourse a role in nation building. The interrelationship between the conservation movement and an evolving civil society

KWells_book_4.fm Page 423 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature for Nation

•

423

in Malaysia has been profoundly significant. In an ethnically divided society where public expression is often muted by political sensitivities, the environmental movement has provided a source of empowerment for citizens. From among the descendants of the very people who engaged in the uninformed exploitation of the forest, as well as those whose traditional claims were eroded, have emerged ardent advocates of forest protection. Apart from influencing government policy and legislation during the 1970s and 1980s (see Appendix 4), their environmental initiatives through NGOs have fostered a new mentality with a wider awareness of the potential for multiple and sustained returns from forests. Transcending political and communal divisions and sensitivities, the conservation movement has been able to address environmental abuse with fair impunity. The pejorative image of an ‘inarticulate’ populace, upon which Cubitt based the colonial state’s hegemonic claim over the Malayan forests, no longer holds.54 The increasing collaboration between state and citizen towards reinstating nature as a shared heritage, overriding sectoral claims and interests, adds a valuable dimension to nationhood. During the course of a little more than a century, or less than the lifespan of a single dipterocarp tree, the lowlands where the forests are at their richest have given way to monotonous plantations and stark conurbations, the dramatic transformation symbolized by Malaysia’s Twin Towers. What remains of the Peninsula’s forest is a relic of a once extensive legacy. The designation within it of nature reserves and parks for biosphere preservation and the range of public amenities remains critical. These, unlike the forest-, aboriginal- and Malayreserves that exclude, segregate or marginalize people, symbolize a common national heritage on which all can make an equal claim. NOTES 1 2 3 4 5

6

7

Alfred Russel Wallace,‘On the physical geography of the Malay Archipelago’, Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, 33 (1863), p. 234. See for example Muhammad Jabil, ‘Problems and prospects in tropical rainforest management for sustainable yield’, p. 403; Wyatt-Smith, ‘Problems and prospects for natural management of tropical moist forests’, pp. 8, 21. EPU-WWFM, ‘Malaysian National Conservation Strategy’, vol. IV: ‘Natural Resource Accounting’, p. 72. EPU-WWFM, ‘Malaysian National Conservation Strategy’, vol. II, p. 249. Kamaruzaman Jusoff, ‘A survey of soil disturbance from tractor logging in a hill forest in Peninsular Malaysia’, in S. Appanah, F.S.P. Ng and Roslan Ismail (eds), Malaysian Forestry and Forest Produce Research: Proceedings of a Conference, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM, 1991, p. 104. For problems emanating from decentralization in Indonesia, see Casson and Obidzinski, ‘From New Order to regional autonomy.’ Also, see G.C. Braganza, ‘Philippine communitybased management: Options for sustainable development’, in Parnwell and Bryant (eds), Environmental Change in Southeast Asia, p. 316; P. Dauvergne, Loggers and Degradation in the Asia Pacific: Corporations and Environmental Management, Cambridge: CUP, 2001, p. 79. For a view that devolution must involve some measure of state involvement in local management, see Environmental History, 6, ii (2001), especially Edmunds and Wollenberg, ‘Historical perspectives on forest policy change in Asia: An introduction’, pp. 190–213. Annual Report 1956; 1999; 2000; Annual Forestry Statistics, Peninsular Malaysia, 2000, Forestry Department, p. 7.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 424 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

424

8 Shaharuddin Mohamad Ismail, Forestry Department Headquarters, Kuala Lumpur, 2002, n.p. 9 Annual Report 2000, Forestry Department, Peninsular, Table 1, p. 77. 10 At the time of the early conservation campaigns in the 1970s, local journalists unacquainted with the language of environmental science and conservation were offered a one-week course by the MNS. Thus, by the close of the twentieth century, a generation of young Malaysian environmental journalists had emerged to address public interest in forest stewardship. F.S.P. Ng, personal communication. The NST and the other English dailies and, more recently, the Malay press have provided an open forum for environmental issues. In addition, the NST incorporated environment as one of the lead topics in its weekly educational supplement. Environmental education by the press was facilitated by government backing for campaigns such as ‘greening the environment’. 11 Kathirithamby-Wells, ‘Forestry and stewardship in Southeast Asia’, pp. 34–39. 12 B. Eccleston and D. Potter, ‘Environmental NGOs and different political contexts in SouthEast Asia: Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam’, in Parnwell and Bryant (eds) Environmental Change in South-East Asia , p. 54. 13 ‘The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development’, Principle 1, The Earth Summit, p. 118. 14 Seventh Malaysia Plan 1996–2000, Kuala Lumpur: National Printing Dept., 1996, p. 605. 15 K.G. Willis and G.D. Garrod, ‘Valuation and analysis of consumer demand for forest recreation areas in Peninsular Malaysia’, in Lee et al. (eds), Conservation, Management and Development, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: FRI, 1998, pp. 300–339; Mohd Basri Hamzah et al., ‘Urban forestry and the amelioration of urban living’, in Wan Sabri Wan Mansor et al. (eds), Outdoor Recreation in Malaysia, Proceedings of a seminar, 26–28 Sep. 1983, Serdang, Selangor: Universiti Pertanian Malaysia, 1983, pp. 351–357. For example, Sungai Menyalah, a lowland VJR close to the seaside town of Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan, and now surrounded by housing development, serves as a popular nature reserve and public park, as does Melaka’s Forest Reserve at Cape Rachardo, bordering Port Dickson. 16 On the recommendation of WWFM, forestry secured the complete protection of some primary forest in Terengganu by designating Amenity Forest Reserves. These include valuable kapur, damar minyak (Agathis borneensis) and the ‘strand forest’ in Jambu Bongkok Reserve, Rantau Abang. WWFM, ‘Proposal for a Conservation Strategy for Trengganu’, pp. 38–39. Similarly, since 1984, a 240-ha coastal wetland site in Kuala Selangor has been managed as a nature park (though not gazetted as such) by the District Council, with the assistance of MNS. MOSTE, ‘Assessment of Biological Diversity in Malaysia’, p. 57. 17 Willis and Garrod. ‘Valuation and analysis of consumer demand for forest recreation areas’, pp. 300–319; Eighth Malaysia Plan 2001–2005, Kuala Lumpur: National Printing Dept., 2001, p. 46. An example of the public demand for green spaces is the unrelenting efforts of the Residents’ Association of Section 5, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, to preserve a unique 150-ha plot of prime secondary forest along the Petaling Jaya-Federal Territory boundary (gazetted in 1961 as a ‘local nature reserve’), against the periodic threat of loss to high-rise residential development. In 1997 a 37-ha segment of the plot on the Selangor side was declared a recreational park to be administered jointly by the Petaling Jaya Town Council (MPPJ) and WWFM. See R. Jong, ‘Alarmed by the clearing of Bukit Gasing land’, Malay Mail , 9 Feb, 2002. Only recently has a promise been made to gazette the remaining area. 18 EPU-WWFM,‘Malaysian National Conservation Strategy’, vol. III, pp. 121–124. 19 Ahamd Zinal Mat Isa, ‘Water shortage’, Foresters’ Bulletin, 1998; Annual Report, 1999, Forestry Department, Kuala Lumpur: Govt. Press 1999, p. 80 20 See, for example, ‘Proceedings: Regional Seminar on Fragmented River Basin Management’, Malaysian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage (MANCID), 2–5 Sept. 1996, Melaka; Mid-Term Review of the Seventh Malaysia Plan 1996–2000, Kuala Lumpur: National Printing Dept. 1999, p 353. Efforts to check intrusions into water-catchments have been bolstered by WWFM’s internationally funded ‘Forests for Water, Water for Life Programme’. The national plan for promoting integrated river-basin management for servicing urban needs – a state initiative in colonial times – now incorporates public participation. ‘Unresolved issues cause for frustration’, NST, 7 April 2002. 21 Pending is a mega-project for transferring raw water from Sungai Semantan, Pahang, to Selangor, via a 45-km tunnel through the Main Range. D. Loh, ‘PWD to shift raw water intake point’, NST, 12 Jan. 2001. 22 ‘Early action needed to preserve river water quality’, Sun, 24 Feb. 2000. 23 D.R. Wells, Personal communication.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 425 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature for Nation

•

425

24 Tan Cheng Li and S.S. Yoga, ‘Sungai Selangor Dam’, Star, 9 March 1999; S. Sabaratnam, ‘Unleashing a flood of frustration’, NST, 16 March 1999. Orang Asli occupied lands have remained largely ungazetted. Of some 137,522 ha estimated in 1996 to be occupied by Orang Asli, the gazetted area, amounting to 13 per cent, increased marginally to 14 per cent in 1999. States are generally reluctant to gazette such areas as, according to the Orang Asli Act of 1954, this would place them under Federal control. JHEOA (Department of Orang Asli Affairs), ‘Data klasifikasi Orang Asli kampung’, 1997, Kuala Lumpur. For a short account of the displacement of Orang Asli by development schemes see C. Nicholas, ‘The Orang Asli of Peninsular Malaysia’, in C. Nicholas and R. Singh (eds), Indigenous Peoples of Asia: Many People, One Struggle, Bangkok: Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact, 1996, pp. 169–172. 25 The court ruled that the seven plaintiffs from Kampung Bukit Tempoi must be adequately compensated. Where previously Orang Asli were entitled, under sections 11 and 12 of the 1954 Aboriginal Peoples Act, to compensation for loss of crops and dwellings only, the court decision recognized their territorial rights, based on traditional markers such as specific trees and stream boundaries. This effectively placed developers under the obligation of either acquiring such land under the Land Acquisitions Act, or entering into a genuine jointventure agreement with the Orang Asli. Faezaah Ismail, ‘A victory for the Orang Asli’; ‘Other Orang Asli may also take action’, NST, 3 April 2002. 26 In the case of the Sungai Selangor Dam, to monitor proper enforcement of the EIA recommendations government appointed Gunung-Ganang Corporation Bhd, an environmental consultancy, headed by Tan Sri Razali Ismail, environmental advocate (Chairman) and Freezailah Che Yeom, former ITTO Executive Director (Deputy Chairman). Loh, ‘PWD to shift raw water intake point’, NST, 12 Jan. 2001. 27 The study was conducted during May 1991–Oct. 1992, guided by a Steering Committee, based in EPU, and a Technical Committee, based in MOSTE. Essential input for the study was provided at 13 workshops, involving a wide range of ministries, departments, statutory bodies and some NGOs. EPU-WWFM, ‘Malaysian National Conservation Strategy’, vol. I, p. 1. 28 EPU-WWFM, ‘Malaysian National Conservation Strategy’, vol. I, p. 15. 29 CBD 1992, Article 6 reads: ‘Each Contracting Party shall, in accordance with its particular conditions and capabilities (a) Develop national strategies, plans or programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity or adapt for this purpose existing strategies, plans or programmes … and (b) Integrate, as far as possible and as appropriate, the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity into relevant sectoral or crosssectoral plans, programmes and policies.’ See also MOSTE, ‘Assessment of Biological Diversity in Malaysia’, p. 153. The article required signatories to draw up national strategies. The report drawn up in response was MOSTE’s Assessment of Biological Diversity in Malaysia. 30 Coordinated by University Kebangsaan Malaysia and FRIM, the Task Force included representatives from FRIM, MOSTE, ISIS, UKM, MNS and WWFM. 31 EPU-WWFM, ‘Malaysian National Conservation Strategy’, vol. I, pp. 38–39; MOSTE, Assessment of Biological Diversity in Malaysia, p. 63. 32 MOSTE, Assessment of Biological Diversity in Malaysia, p. 112. 33 MOSTE, Assessment of Biological Diversity in Malaysia, pp. 35, 42–43; R. and C. PrescottAllen’, ‘Wild plants and crop improvement’, Occasional Paper, 1, IUCN, Godalming, U.K., 1982, pp. 8–9. 34 MOSTE, Assessment of Biological Diversity in Malaysia, p. 58; EPU-WWFM, Malaysian National Conservation Strategy, vol. I, p. 52. 35 MOSTE, Assessment of Biological Diversity in Malaysia, p. 151. 36 ‘National Parks Act 1980’, Laws of Malaysia, Act 226, Kuala Lumpur: National Press, 1980, Clause 9 (1). See also p. 344. To safeguard park interests as a whole against State interference, it was recommended that the National Parks Advisory Council and National Parks Committee be empowered to administer National Parks, subject only to a Ministerial veto. MOSTE, Assessment of Biological Diversity in Malaysia, p. 115. 37 According to Article 76, clause I (a): Parliament may make laws ‘for the purpose of implementing any treaty, agreement or convention between the Federation and any other country, or any decision of an international organization of which the Federation is a member.’ Shaik Mohd Noor Alam, ‘Uniform forest laws – Whose dilemma?’, pp. 388, 390–391. 38 See B.E. Weber, ‘A parks system for West Malaysia’, Oryz, 11, vi (1972), pp. 463–464; The Seventh Malaysia Plan, p. 600; Mid-Term Review of the Seventh Malaysia Plan, p. 353; MOSTE, Assessment of Biological Diversity in Malaysia, p. 122.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 426 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

426

39 The World Bank, for example, has argued that sanctions, while likely to be effective when imposed by stronger nations on weaker nations, offers the latter little means of seeking redress by the same process. I. Johnson, ‘Trade and the environment’, in WTO Secretariat (ed.), Trade, Development and the Environment, London: Kluwer Law International, 2000, p. 25. 40 In 1996, for example, the Malaysia-Netherlands Working Group Pilot Study on timber certification was initiated in the interests of MTIB and the Netherlands Timber Trade Association. SGS Malaysia Sdn. Bhd, which conducted forest management certification in Selangor, Pahang and Terengganu, identified several areas where compliance with MC&I was incomplete. Scheduled were reassessments of the three States, as well as preliminary assessments of the remaining States, in accordance with the revised MC&I adopted at the ITTO Council meetings at Libreville, Gabon (1998) and Chiang Mai, Thailand (1999). From http://webclub.kcom.ne.jp/ma/yamasho/Malay-c&103.htm, 12 Aug. 2001, pp. 13–19. 41 Sixth Malaysia Plan, pp. 116–117; Vincent and Rozali, Environment and Development, pp. 156–157, 175; Lim Jit Sai et al., ‘Soil resources in Malaysia: An overview’, pp. 123–124, 135– 136. 42 Third National Agricultural Policy (1998–2010), Ministry of Agriculture, 1998, pp. 158, 162, 170; ‘Progress Report, 1989–92, Forest Department of Malaysia’, 14th Commonwealth Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 1993, pp. 16–18. 43 Third National Agricultural Policy, Chapter 10, para. 10.27. 44 WWFM, ‘Proposal for a Conservation Strategy for Trengganu’, pp. 50–51. 45 For more on this, see G.M. Lenton, ‘Owls as rat controllers: A preliminary report’, Planter, 54 (1978), pp. 72–83. 46 For a sceptical view of ‘sustainable logging’, see for example, M. Colchester, ‘The international tropical timber Organization: Kill or cure for the rainforest’, in S. Rietbergen (ed.) Tropical Forestry, London: Earthscan, 1993, pp. 191–194; Majid Cooke, The Challenge of Sustainable Forests, pp. 196–205. 47 Calophyllum lanigerum, for example, has been collected in Sarawak for the extraction of the compound, Calanolide A, a potential anti-AIDS drug. Under a 1996 joint-venture agreement, the Sarawak government and the Illinois-based Medichem Research Incorporated hold exclusive rights to patent Calanolides. See K. ten Kate and A.M. Wells, ‘The access and benefit sharing policies of the United States National Cancer Institute: A Comparative account of the discovery and development of the drug Calanolide and Topotecan’. Case study submitted by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, 1998, to the Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, http://www.biodiv.org/chm/techno/gen-res.html#cases. 48 MOSTE, Assessment of Biological Diversity in Malaysia, pp. 143; 149–150. 49 Lim, Orang Asli, pp. 25–29; MOSTE, Assessment of Biological Diversity in Malaysia, p. 105; See also pp. 340–341. 50 R.D.L. Jumper, Power and Politics: The Story of Malaysia’s Orang Asli, Landham, Oxford: University Press of America, 1997, p. 88. 51 Personal communication, D.R. Wells. 52 Dauvergne, Loggers and Deforestation in the Asia-Pacific, p. 49. 53 J. A. McNeely, ‘Lessons from the past: Forests and biodiversity’, Biodiversity and Conservation, 3 (1994) p. 17. The CSBD in its report recognized the need to develop an effective institutional mechanism for coordinating all government agencies involved in natural resource management. MOSTE, Assessment of Biological Diversity in Malaysia, p. 185. 54 See p. 88.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 427 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Appendices

KWells_book_4.fm Page 428 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

KWells_book_4.fm Page 429 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Appendices

•

429

APPENDIX 1

Forest Area, Peninsular Malaysia, 1946–2000

10

9 8 7 6

Source: Forestry Department, Kuala Lumpur

96 19

91 19

86 19

81 19

76 19

71 19

66 19

61 19

56 19

51 19

46

5 19

F O R E S T A R E A (million ha)

11

KWells_book_4.fm Page 430 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

430

APPENDIX 2

Forest Area, Timber and Revenue Extracted, 1946–2000 FOREST REVENUE

FORESTED AREA/ TIMBER EXTRACTED 14000

420000

12000

360000

10000

300000

8000

240000

6000

180000

4000

120000

2000

60000 0

Forested Area (’000 ha)

Timber Extracted (’000 m3)

20 00

19 90

19 80

19 70

19 60

19 50

0

Forest Revenue Collected (M$ ’000)

KWells_book_4.fm Page 431 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Appendices

•

431

APPENDIX 3

Population Compared to Forest Area, 1891–2006

F O R E S T A R E A / P O P U L AT I O N

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

Population (’000)

95 20 0 20 0 06

90

19

80

19

19

70 19

57 19

47 19

31 19

18

91

0

Forest Area (ha ’000)

Source: N.N. Dodge (1980), p. 453; J.K. Sundaram (1988), p. 326; J. R. Vincent & Rozali Mohamed Ali & Associates (1997), pp. 6–7; MOSTE (1997), p. 15. Also see Table 6; Seventh Malaysia Plan, p. 29; Annual Reports.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 432 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

432

APPENDIX 4

Forest and Forest-Related Domestic Policies, Legislation and International Agreements ENV IRONMENTAL POLICIES AND LE G ISLATION, PENINSULAR MALAYSIA

Control of Rivers and Streams Enactment 1920 Aboriginal Peoples Act 1954, Revised 1974 Land Conservation Act 1960, Revised 1989 National Land Code 1965 Protection of Wild Life Act 1972, Amended 1976, 1988 Malaysian Timber Industry Board Act 1973 Environmental Quality Act 1974, Amended 1996, 1998, 2001 Town and Country Planning Act 1976, Amended 1994, 1995, 2001 National Forest Policy 1978, Revised 1992 National Parks Act 1980, Amended 1983 National Forestry Act 1984, Amended 1993 Malaysian Forestry Research and Development Act 1985 National Policy on Biological Diversity 1998 KEY FOREST-RELATED INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS AND CONVENTIONS RATIFIED BY MALAYSIA

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES), 1973, Washington, ratified 18 Jan. 1978. International Tropical Timber Agreement, 1983, Geneva, ratified 14 Dec. 1984. International Tropical Timber Agreement, 1994, Geneva, ratified 1 March 1995. United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 1992, Rio de Janeiro, ratified 24 June 1994. United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change, 1992, New York, ratified 13 July 1994. Conference on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention) 1971, Ramsar, ratified 10 Nov. 1994.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 433 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Appendices

•

433

APPENDIX 5

Annual Average Southern [ENSO] Oscillation Index, 1880–1990

RAINFALL ANOMALIES (millimetres)

20 15 10 5 0 -5

-10 -15

Source: N. Nicholls (1993), p. 173.

80 19

70 19

60 19

50 19

40 19

30 19

20 19

10 19

00 19

18

90

-20

KWells_book_4.fm Page 434 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

KWells_book_4.fm Page 435 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Bibliography UNPUBLISHED OFFICIAL SOURCES P UBLIC R ECORD O FFICE , L ONDON CO 273: Original Correspondence between the Governor, Straits Settlements, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, 1895–1910. CO 717:Original correspondence between the High Commissioner, FMS, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, 1920–1940, 53/3–99/13; 107/15; 109/9. N ATIONAL A RCHIVES [A RKIB N EGARA ] M ALAYSIA , K UALA L UMPUR Forest Records: Forest Department Records (Correspondence between Director of Forestry/ Chief Forest Conservator/Forest Adviser and State Forest Officers), 1901–1941, 1945–1971. Federal Ad. F: Adviser, Forestry. BMA/DEP: British Military Administration, Departmental. CF: Conservator of Forests. DF: Department of Forestry. FS: Federal Secretariat. State
Selangor Sel. Sec.: Selangor State Secretariat.
Kedah DO Sik: District Office, Sik. FSOK: Forestry, State of Kedah. PHDK [Pejabat Hutan Daerah, Kulim]: District Forest Office, Kulim. PHD KU/ Ps [Pejabat Hutan Daerah, Kedah Utara, Perlis]: District Forest Office, North Kedah and Perlis.
Perak FLOP: Forests, Lower Perak. PHK [Pejabat Hutan, Kinta]: Forest Office, Kinta. SFO Pk: State Forest Office, Perak.
Pahang DFO Phg: District Forest Office, Pahang. SFO Phg/ PHN Phg [Pejabat Hutan Negeri, Pahang]: State Forest Office, Pahang. N ATIONAL A RCHIVES , K EDAH B RANCH , A LOR S ETAR District Forest Office Records, Kedah North (Jitra), 1948–1972. R HODES H OUSE , O XFORD C.H.F. Blake Papers. G.A. de C. de Moubray Papers. G.C. Dodwell Papers. M.L. Webber Papers. C AMBRIDGE U NIVERSITY L IBRARY Raffles: Papers (C.E. Wurtzburg Collection): CUL, Ms Add. 7363, 7373. British Association of Malaysia Archives, RSMS 103/BAM, XIII/1–2, Penang 1801–1825.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 436 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

436

L IBRARY OF THE R OYAL B OTANIC G ARDENS , K EW , R ICHMOND Directors’ Correspondence, 168. Federated Malay States Administration and Products, 1882–1905. Malaya: Gutta-Percha, Misc. 1876–1904. Singapore Botanic Gardens, Misc. 1874–1917. Singapore Botanic Gardens, Straits Settlements Forests, 1883–1901.

OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS P ROCEEDINGS British Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 1918–1936, 1945–1947, Hansard, London: HMSO. British Parliamentary Debates, House of Lords, Nov. 1929, Hansard, London: HMSO. Federated Malay States, Federal Council Proceedings, 1909–1941, Kuala Lumpur: Government Press. House of Commons Papers: Annual Reports of Commissioners, Malaya, 1901–1933, London: HMSO. Proceedings of the State Legislative Assembly, Pahang, 1980–1992. Proceedings of the State Legislative Assembly, Kelantan, 1980s. ANNUAL REPORTS , FEDERATED MALAY STATES , STRAITS SETTLEMENTS / MALAYA /MALAYSIA Annual Reports, Botanic Gardens and Forest Department, 1887–1990. Annual Reports, FMS, ‘Forests’, 1910–1919. Annual Reports, Forest Administration, Supplement to FMS Government Gazette, 1920–1930, London: HMSO. Annual Reports, Forest Administration, FMS/ Malaya, 1922–1941, Empire Forestry Journal, vols. 6–20. Annual Reports, Forest Administration of the FMS, SS and Brunei, 1935–1940. Annual Reports, Forest Administration, Malayan Union, 1946–1947. Annual Reports, Forest Administration, Federation of Malaya, 1948–1962. Annual Reports, Forest Administration, Peninsular Malaysia [Penyata Tahunan Perhutanan, Malaysia Barat], 1963–2000. Annual Reports, Department of Wildlife and National Parks [Jabatan Perlindungan Hidupan Liar dan Taman Negara /PERHILITAN] 1983, 1990, 1993, 1997. Annual Reports, Game Department, 1947, 1953. Annual Reports, Johor, 1930–1940. Annual Reports, Kelantan, 1931–1938. Annual Reports, Kedah and Perlis, 1915–1919. Annual Reports: UFMS, Colonial Reports, 1920–1938, London: HMSO. Forestry Statistics, Peninsular Malaysia, Forestry Department, 1990–2000. Malayan Meteorological Observations, 1929–1931, Malayan Meteorological Services. Malaysia Year Book [Malaysia Buku Rasmi], 1965–1975. P ARLIAMENTARY P APERS British Parliamentary Records, Accounts and Papers, 1831–1879, London: HMSO. Annual Reports: UFMS Command Papers, 1910–1919, London: HMSO. L AWS AND E NACTMENTS : M ALAYA
Federated Malay States (FMS) FMS Enactments, 1910–1939, Supplement to FMS Government Gazettes. Laws of the Federated Malay States, 1877–1920, Compiled by A.B. Voules, London and Aylesbury: FMS Government, 1921, 3 vols.
Johor Laws of Johor, Enactments 1–55, London: Government Press, 1935, 3 vols.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 437 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Bibliography

•

437


Negeri Sembilan Government of Negri Sembilan, Orders and Regulations, Sungai Ujong (old:1883–1895) and Negri Sembilan (1895) State Councils, Kuala Lumpur: Selangor Government Press, 1896. Negri Sembilan Laws, Orders in Council, Regulations and Enactments, 1883–1903, by C.V. Dyson and W.H. Dinsmore, Singapore: Fraser & Neave, 1904, 2 vols. State of Negri Sembilan: Enactments Passed in Council, 1897, Revised by C.E.M. Desborough, Kuala Lumpur: Selangor Government Press, 1899. Negri Sembilan Enactments, 1905–1909, Kuala Lumpur: Government Press, 1910.
Pahang Pahang Laws, 1889–1897, Kuala Lumpur: Selangor Government Press, 1898. State of Pahang Enactments Passed in Council, 1901–1908.
Perak Laws of Perak, 1877–1903, Kuala Lumpur: Government Press, 1904, 2 vols. State of Perak Enactments Passed in Council, 1905–1909.
Selangor Laws of Selangor, 1877–1896, Kuala Lumpur: Government Press, 1897. Laws of Selangor, 1877–1899, Orders in Council, Regulations and Enactments Passed by the State Council, Compiled by A.B. Voules, Kuala Lumpur: Selangor Government Press, 1901. Land Enactment, 1896, Selangor Government Gazette, 20 Feb. 1903, No. 6, vol. XIV. Selangor Enactments Passed in Council 1899, Kuala Lumpur: Selangor Government Press, 1900. State of Selangor, Laws, Statutes, Enactments Passed in Council, 1903–1908.
Terengganu Laws of Terengganu, 1939, Compiled by J.H.M. Robson, Revised by A.Y.D. Berrington, Singapore: Singapore Printers Ltd., 1941. A CTS (L AWS OF M ALAYA /M ALAYSIA ) ‘Aboriginal Peoples Act, 1954’, Ordinance No. 3, 1954; 1967 (Amendment) A16; 1974 (Revised) Act 134. ‘Land Conservation Act, 1960’, Act. 3; 1989 (Revised) Act 385. ‘Protection of Wild Life Act, 1972’, Act 76; 1976 (Amendment) A337; 1988 (Amendment) A697. ‘Environmental Quality Act, 1974’, Act 127; 1985 (Amendment) A636; 1996 (Amendment) A953; 1998 (Amendment) A1030; 2001 (Amendment) A1102. ‘Town and Country Planning Act 1976’, Act 172; 1994 (Amendment) A866; 1995 (Amendment) A933; 2001 (Amendment) A1129. ‘National Parks Act, 1980’, Act 226; 1983 (Amendment) Act A571. ‘National Forestry Act, 1984’, Act 313; 1993 (Amendment) Act A864. M ALAYSIA P LANS —— 1965. First Malaysia Plan 1966–1970, Kuala Lumpur: Government Press. —— 1969. Mid-Term Review of the First Malaysia Plan 1966–1970, Kuala Lumpur: Government Press. —— 1971. Second Malaysia Plan 1971–1975, Kuala Lumpur: Government Press. —— 1973. Mid-Term Review of the Second Malaysia Plan 1971–1975, Kuala Lumpur: Government Press. —— 1976. Third Malaysia Plan 1976–1980, Kuala Lumpur: Government Press. —— 1981. Fourth Malaysia Plan 1981–1985, Kuala Lumpur: National Printing Department. —— 1986. Fifth Malaysia Plan 1986–1990, Kuala Lumpur: National Printing Department. —— 1991. Sixth Malaysia Plan 1991–1995, Kuala Lumpur: National Printing Department. —— 1996. Seventh Malaysia Plan 1996–2000, Kuala Lumpur: National Printing Department. —— 1999. Mid-Term Review of the Seventh Malaysia Plan 1996–2000, Kuala Lumpur: Government Printing Department. —— 2001. Eighth Malaysia Plan 2001–2005, Kuala Lumpur: Government Printing Department.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 438 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

438

SPECIAL REPORTS AND PAPERS Anderson, R.E. 1957. Director of Medical Services, Federation of Malaya, Report of the Medical Department for 1955, Kuala Lumpur: Government Press. ASEAN-Canada. 1988. ‘Country Report: Malaysia’, Asian Forest Resource Database, Kuala Lumpur: Institute of Forest Management. Brandt, W. (intro.). 1980. North-South: A Programme for Survival. Report of the Independent Commission on International Development Issues, London: Pan Books. Colonial Office. 1921. ‘Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Imperial Forestry Education’, Report from Commissioners, Inspectors and Others, Cmd. 1166, XII, 727, London HMSO. —— 1933. Report of Brigadier Gen. Sir Samuel Wilson on his visit to Malaya, 1932, Cmd. 4276, London: HMSO. Council of Europe. 1989. ‘Management of tropical rain forests – Utopia or chance of survival?’ Summary Statement, International Symposium of the German Foundation for International Development. Submitted to the public hearing on the destruction of tropical forests, Committee on Agriculture, Council of Europe, Lausanne, 9 March. Curtis, C. 1888. Straits Settlements Annual Report on the Forest Department, Penang, 1887, Singapore: Government Printing Press. DID, Malaya.1939. Construction of irrigation and drainage works, in Annual Report of the Drainage and Irrigation Department of the Malay States and the S.S., 1937, Singapore: Government Press. DWNP. 1977. ‘Tembeling hydro-electricity project: An analysis of the environmental and sociological consequences of implementation, with particular reference to Taman Negara’, Report prepared for MOSTE. ESCAP-FAO. 1980. ‘A report on the joint ESCAP/FAO mission to major tropical timber producing countries in Asia and the Pacific’, Kuala Lumpur. FAO. 1957. ‘Report of the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission’, Rome. —— 1970. Sir Henry B. Pierse, ‘Malaysia: Forest Policy, Law and Administration in West Malaysia’, Forest Industries Development Project, FAO, UNDP, Working Paper 6, SF/ MAL/ 68/ 516. —— 1972. ‘Forestry and forest industries development, Malaysia: A national forest inventory of Malaysia’, Technical Report No. 5, DP/ MAL/ 72/ 009, Rome. —— 1973. ‘Forest and forest industries development Malaysia: Logging and log transportation in Peninsular Malaysia’, Technical Report No. 8, DP/ MAL/ 009, Rome. —— 1973. D. Lawson, ‘Forest industries development Malaysia: Forest legislation in West Malaysia’, Forestry and Forestry Development Project, Working Paper 18, DP/ MAL/ 009, Rome. —— 1978. ‘Management planning and operational control of mechanized harvesting systems for the utilization of the national rain forest resources’, Forest Development, Peninsular Malaysia, UNDP, FAO Report, FO: DP/ MAL/75/012, Kuala Lumpur. —— 1985. ‘Tropical Forest Action Plan’, Committee on Forest Development in the Tropics, Rome. —— 1993. R. De Milde, ‘Forest inventory and management system as part of the Forest Resources Conservation Programme’, Field Document 1, MAL/89/001, Rome. —— 1994.‘Timber harvesting and the problem of deforestation’, Forest Harvesting Bulletin 4, i, Rome. —— 1996. D.P. Dykstra and R. Heinrich, FAO model code for forest harvesting practice, DP/ MAL/ 75-12, Rome. FAO, UNEP. 1993. S. Oekan Abdoellah and Otto Soemarwoto, ‘Forest as an agent of sustainable development’, in Proceedings of a Conference: ‘Beyond UNCED’, Global Forestry Conference: Response to Agenda 21, 17–20 Feb. 1993, Organized by the Institute of Ecology, University of Pajajaran, Bandung, Sponsored by the Ministry of Forestry, Republic of Indonesia; Indonesian Cultural Foundation and FAO. —— 1995. ‘Three years after Rio: Regional perspectives on UNCED follow-up in forestry’, UN Environmental Programme, Summary report on regional workshops on implications of Agenda 21 and the Forest Principles for Africa, Asia, the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, Rome. FELDA. 1967. The Jengka Triangle: Outline Master Plan, Kuala Lumpur. Fermor, Sir Lewis. 1939. Report upon the Mining Industry of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur. Forest/Forestry Department, Malaysia.1959. ‘Report of the Working Party on Forest Policy’, 23 Oct. (Confidential), Plant Science Library, Oxford University.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 439 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Bibliography

•

439

—— 1976. ‘A study of the forest operations of Syarikat Jengka during the first-year exploitation under sustained-yield management’, Government of Malaysia-UNDP/FAO Forest Development Project, Kuala Lumpur. —— 1982. Inventori Hutan Nasional II, Semenanjung Malaysia, 1981–1982,[National Forest Inventory II, Peninsular Malaysia, 1981–1982], Ibu Pejabat Perhutanan [Forestry Department Headquarters], Kuala Lumpur. —— 1990. ‘Chadangan projek-projek untuk Tropical Forestry Action Plan’ [‘Proposed Projects for TFAP’], Kuala Lumpur. —— 1992. Inventori Hutan Nasional III, Semenanjung Malaysia, 1990–92 [National Forest Inventory III, Peninsular Malaysia, 1990–1992], Ibu Pejabat Perhutanan [Forestry Department Headquarters], Kuala Lumpur. —— 1993. Progress Report, 1989–1992, Prepared for the 14th Commonwealth Forestry Conference, Kuala Lumpur. —— 2002. ‘The administration and management of the Perlis State Park’, in Biodiversity and Management of Perlis State Park: Physical, Biological and Social Environments of Wang Mu, Perlis: Department of Forestry. FRI. 1967. N.R. Cerra, Report No. 14, Batang Padang District, Perak, Forest Resource Reconnaissance Survey of Malaya. —— 1967. Salleh Mohammed Nor, Report No. 16, Melaka State, Forest Resource Reconnaissance Survey of Malaya. FRIM. 1993. ‘Malaysia: Recommendations of the 13th Commonwealth Forestry Conference’, in Thang et al. (eds),People, the Environment and Forestry, pp. 163–254. FRIM-ODA. 1995. ‘FAO-ODA Joint Project on Sustainable Management of Rain Forest in Southeast Asia’, in Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Forestry and Forest Products Research, vol. 1, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM. Game Department. 1968. W.E. Stevens, ‘The conservation of wildlife in West Malaysia’, Report, submitted to the Office of the Chief Game Warden, Seremban, Negeri Sembilan. —— 1968. B. E. Weber, ‘A national park system for West Malaysia’, Report. Government of Malaya. 1923. C. J. McCabe Reay, President, Retrenchment Commission, ThirtyEighth Interim Report, for the High Commissioner, Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer. —— 1928. ‘Report of the Commission appointed to Inquire into and Report upon certain matters regarding the rivers in the Federated Malay States’, Kuala Lumpur: Government Printing Press. —— 1932. Report of the Wild Life Commission: Recommendations, Singapore: Government Printer, 3 vols. —— 1932. Report of the Federated Malay States Retrenchment Commission appointed by His Excellency the High Commissioner, 9 March, Kuala Lumpur: Government Press. —— 1947. F.H. Landon, ‘Regional forest training’, Kuala Lumpur: Malayan Union Government. —— 1955. R.E. Anderson, Report of the Medical Department for 1955, Kuala Lumpur: Government Press. —— 1956. Malaya: Secondary Schools Biology Syllabus published under Regulation 4 of Schools (Courses of Studies) Regulations, as approved by the High Commissioner in Council, Federation of Malaya. —— 1956/7. Botany Syllabus for Secondary Schools for the Federation of Malaya, as approved by His Majesty the Yang-di Pertuan Agong, Federation of Malaya. —— 1958. ‘Basis of land policy’, National Land Council Paper No. 2/1958. Government of Malaysia (see also Prime Minister’s Department). —— 1966. M.L. Leamy, Proposals for the Technical Classification of Malaysian Soils, Malaysian Soil Survey, Report 3, Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives. —— 1966. M.L. Leamy and W.P. Panton, ‘Soil survey manual for Malaysian conditions’, Bulletin of the Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives, Division of Agriculture, No. 119. —— 1971. P. C. Lee and W.P. Pantan, First Malaysia Land Capability Classification Report, West Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: Government Press. —— 1976. Tun Mohamed Suffian Hashim, An Introduction to the Constitution of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer. —— 1978. The National Forestry Policy, 1978, Kuala Lumpur: Keramat Printing Press.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 440 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

440

—— 1986. ‘Environmental impact assessment of the proposed tourist project in Taman Negara’, Prepared by WWFM. —— 1995. The National Forestry Policy, 1978 (revised 1992), Kuala Lumpur: Percetakan Selaseh KL. —— 1996. MANCID (Malaysian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage). ‘Regional Seminar on Integrated River Basin Management’, 2–5 Sept., Melaka, Proceedings, vol. 3. —— 1998. Third National Agricultural Policy (1998–2010), Ministry of Agriculture. Government of the Netherlands Indies (Department of Economic Affairs, Batavia). 1936. Nature Protection in the Netherlands Indies. Compiled by the Section on Nature Protection, Government Botanic Gardens, Buitenzorg: Department of Economic Affairs, Batavia. Hill, H.C. 1900. Report on the Present System of Forest Conservancy in the Straits Settlements with Suggestions for Future Management, Singapore: Government Printing Office. —— 1900. Report on the Present System of Forest Administration in the Federated Malay States with Suggestions for the Future Management of the Forests of those States, Kuala Lumpur: Selangor Government Printing Office. House of Lords. 1990. Select Committee of the European Communities on Tropical Forests, United Kingdom Parliamentary Commission, London: HMSO. IBRD. 1955. The Economic Development of Malaya. Published for the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins/Singapore: Government Printer. —— 1970. ‘Extracts from “Current economic position and prospects of Malaysia”’, vol. 1, Report, 24 Feb. IIED. [n.d.] ‘The Case Study: Socio-economic and environmental aspects on Kenyir Dam in the State of Terengganu, Peninsular Malaysia’. IMR. 1951. Medical Trends: Institute for Medical Research, 1900–1950. Jubilee Volume, Studies from the Institute for Medical Research, Federation of Malaya, No. 25, Kuala Lumpur. Indian Forester. 1904. ‘Notes from the Federated Malay States’, 30, x, pp. 458–463. —— 1905. ‘Forest administration in the Federated Malay States, 1904’, 31, ii, pp. 644–667. —— 1910. ‘The Federated Malay States’ Forests’, 36, ix, pp. 521–524. —— 1911. ‘Report on forest administration in the Federated Malay States, 1909’, 37, iii & iv, pp. 70–71. ITTO. 1990. ‘ITTO Mission: Promotion of sustainable forest management: A case study in Sarawak, Malaysia’. Report submitted to the Inter-Tropical Timber Council, 8th Session, Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia, 16–23 March. —— 1992. ‘Criteria for the measurement of sustainable tropical forest management’, ITTO Policy Development Series No. 3, Yokohama. —— 1992–95. Annual Review and Assessment of the World Tropical Timber Situation, Division of Economic Information and Marketing Intelligence, Yokohama. —— 1994. ‘Criteria and Indicators for sustainable management of natural tropical forest’, Yokohama. IUCN. 1968. J.L.Harrison.‘Education in schools: The time lag in teaching biology’, in L.M. Talbot and H.Y.H. Talbot (eds), Conservation in Tropical Asia, Proceedings of the Conference on Nature and Natural Resources in Tropical South-East Asia, Organized by IUCN and sponsored by FAO, UNESCO and the National Research Council of Thailand, 29 Nov.–4 Dec. 1965, IUCN Publications, Series No 10, Morges, Switzerland, pp. 184–187. —— Mohd Khan Momin Khan. 1968. ‘Specialist wildlife training from the standpoint of an Asian trainee’, ibid., pp. 44–46. —— 1969. P.R.Wycherley, ‘Conservation in Malaysia’, IUCN, Supplementary Paper, No. 22, Morges, Switzerland. —— 1982. R.and C. Prescott-Allen, ‘Wild plants and crop improvement’, World Conservation Strategy, Occasional Paper, No. 1, Godalming, U.K. —— 1986. J.A. Sayer. ‘Promise in Paris’, in Tropical forest conservation: the art of the impossible. (compiled) J. A.Sayer and J. Wheare, IUCN Bulletin, 17, i–iii, , pp. 17–18. —— 1987. M.E.D. Poore and J. A. Sayer. The Management of Tropical Moist Forest Lands: Ecological Guidelines, Tropical Forest Programme, Gland: Switzerland. —— 1989. J. H. De Beer, and M.J. McDermott. 1989. Economic Value of Non-Timber Products in Southeast Asia, with emphasis on Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, Netherlands Committee for IUCN, The Netherlands.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 441 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Bibliography

•

441

IUCN, ITTO. 1992. ‘Malaysia’, in M. Blockhus, J.Dillenbeck, J.A.Sayer and P. Wegge (eds), Conserving Biological Diversity in Managed Tropical Forest, Proceedings of a Workshop held at the IUCN General Assembly, Perth, Australia, 30 Nov.–1 Dec. 1990. —— 1992. T.C. Whitmore and J.A Sayer (eds), Tropical Deforestation and Species extinction, London: Chapman & Hall. —— 1992. A. D. Johns, ‘Species conservation and the management of tropical forests’, in T.C. Whitmore and J.A. Sayer, Tropical Deforestation and Species Extinction, London: Chapman & Hall, pp. 15–54. IUCN, UNEP, WWF. 1980. ‘Preservation of genetic diversity’, World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. JHEOA (Department of Orang Asli Affairs) 1997. ‘Data klasifikasi Orang Asli Kampung’, Kuala Lumpur. Malayan Forester. 1969. Editorial, ‘The International Biological Programme’, 22, iv, p. 354. —— 1967. Editorial, ‘The evolution of the Malaysian Timber Export Industry Board’, 30, iii, p. 163. Ministry of Agriculture, Malaysia. 1980. Lim Jit Sai, A. H. Basit and Yew Hwee Hwang, ‘Detailed Reconnaissance Survey of the Kesedar Region, Kelantan,’ Soil and Analytical Services Branch, Division of Agriculture, Kuala Lumpur, vol. 1. Ministry of Trade and Primary Industries, Malaysia. 1983. Proceedings: Malaysian Timber Marketing Conference, Organized by the MTIB, 6–7 Dec., Kuala Lumpur. —— 1989. Tropical Forest Action Plan for Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: Government Press. MOSTE. 1987. ‘Environmental Quality (prescribed activities): Environmental Impact Assessment Order’. —— 1997. Assessment of Biological Diversity in Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. —— 1998. National Policy on Biological Diversity, Kuala Lumpur: National Institute of Publishing. —— 2000. Malaysia, Initial National Communication, Submitted to the UNFCCC, Kuala Lumpur. Prime Minister’s Department, Malaysia. 1959. Abdul Aziz Abdul Majid, Permanent Secretary, Radio Talk, ‘Bribery and Corruption’, Kuala Lumpur, 14 Nov. —— 1992. ‘Statement by His Excellency Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, Prime Minister of Malaysia at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 13 June, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil’. Kuala Lumpur. —— 1993. EPU-WWFM.‘Malaysian National Conservation Strategy’, vol. I: Executive Summary and the Strategy; vol. II: Administration; vol. III: Critical Areas; vol. IV: National Resource Accounting. —— 2001. EPU-WWFM.‘Study on the Development of Hill Stations’, Final Report, 2 vols. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 1998. K. ten Kate and A.M. Wells.‘The access and benefit-sharing policies of the United States National Cancer Institute: A Comparative account of the discovery and development of the drugs Calanolide and Topotecan’. Case Study, Submitted to the Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, http://www.biodiv.org/ chm/techno/gen_res.html#cases. Smith, S. 1906. Report on the FMS and Java, For the Parliament of Australia, Victoria, Australia: J. Kemp. UKM [National University, Malaysia] Bureau of Research Consultancy. 1987. ‘Pergau Dam Project: Terrestrial and Aquatic (including Archaeology) Sub-Study’. Final report submitted to Lembaga Letrik Negara [National Electricity Board]. —— 1990. Bureau of Research and Consultancy. ‘Environmental Post-Project Evaluation, Terengganu Hydro-Electric Project, Kenyir Dam’, Submitted to the Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund Japan. UNCED. 1991. ‘Country Report, Malaysia’, National Steering Committee on Environment and Development, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia. —— 1992. ‘Agenda 21’, Rio de Janeiro, 14 June. —— 1993. ‘The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development’ as adopted at UNCED, 13 June 1992. Reproduced in S.P. Johnson (intro. and commentary), The Earth Summit: The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). International Environmental Law and Policy Series, London: Graham and Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 118–122. UNDP, World Bank, Government of Malaysia.1981. Halcrow-ULG Ltd., ‘Land-Use and Forest Management, Strategy for Southern Kelantan’, State and Rural Development Project, Swindon, London.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 442 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

442

Warta Sektor Perhutanan [Forest Sector Review], 1995, vol. II, Nos 1 and 2. WCED. 1987 (Brundtland Report). Our Common Future: The World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford: OUP. WCFSD. 2000. Emil Salim and Ola Ullsten, Our Forests, Our Future, Report of the World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development, Cambridge: CUP. World Bank. 1987. ‘The Jengka Triangle Project in Malaysia: Impact Evaluation Report’, World Bank Operations Evaluation Department, Washington, D.C. —— 1995. Kanta Kumari, An Environmental and Economic Assessment of Forest Management Options: A Case Study in Malaysia. Paper 026, Environmentally Sustainable Development, Pollution and Environmental Economics, Washington, D.C. World Resources Institute. 1985. ‘Tropical forests: A call for action’, Plan III: Country investment profiles, Washington, D.C. WTO. 2000. I. Johnson. ‘Trade and the environment’, in WTO Secretariat (ed.), Trade, Development and the Environment, London: Kluwer Law International, pp. 23–27. WWF, 1987. Comment, J. A. Sayer, 19 Oct., WWF Press Release, 41, ii. WWFM. 1983. ‘Proposals for a Conservation Strategy for Trengganu: A Paper submitted to the State Government of Trengganu’, Kuala Lumpur. —— 1984. ‘Proposals for a Conservation Strategy for Kedah: A Paper Submitted to the State Government of Kedah’, Kuala Lumpur. —— 1985. ‘Environmental impact assessment of the proposed tourism project in Taman Negara’, A Report for the Government of Malaysia, Report No. 30, Aug. —— 1991. ‘A Conservation Strategy for Negeri Kelantan Darulnaim’, vol. 1: Executive Summary; vol. 2: Main Report, Submitted to the Government of Kelantan, Kuala Lumpur. —— 1993. ‘Forest Stewardship Council (FSC): Malaysian Consultative Study Report’. Prepared by the Malaysian FSC Consultative Study Working Group. —— 1993. G.W.H. Davison, ‘State conservation strategies, their progress and prospects in Malaysia’, WWFM Report, Project MYS 242/92. —— 2000. J. Tang. ‘Impacts of dams on biodiversity/ecosystems’. Fact Sheet on Kenyir Dam. WWFM and Selangor State Planning and Development Unit. 1988.‘Conservation Strategy Malaysia, Executive Summary, Proposals for a Conservation Strategy for Selangor Darul Ehsan’, Kuala Lumpur.

NEWSPAPERS, WEEKLIES AND PERIODICALS British Malaya Business Times Edge Far Eastern Economic Review Malay Mail Malaya Tribune Malayan/Malaysian Naturalist Mingguan Malaysia National Echo New Straits Times New Sunday Times

Planter Selangor Journal Singapore Chronicle Straits Times Star Sun Sunday Times Times of Malaya Utusan Malaysia Watan

B O OKS, ARTICLES AND CONFERENCE PAPERS Adam Malik. 1984. Opening Address, ‘Protected areas and political reality’, in McNeely and Miller (eds), National Parks, Conservation and Development. Adamowicz, W.L., P. Boxall, M.K. Luckert, W.E. Phillips, W.A. White (eds). 1996. Forestry, Economics and the Environment, Wallingford: CAB International. Adams, W.M. 1990. Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in the Third World, London: Routledge. Adas, M. 1981. ‘From avoidance to confrontation: Peasant protest in precolonial and colonial Southeast Asia’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 23, pp. 217–247.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 443 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Bibliography

•

443

Adibah Amin. 1977. ‘Logging our taman-to-be: is it need or greed?’ New Straits Times, 11 May. Adkin, L. 2000. ‘Democracy, ecology, political economy: Reflections on starting points’, in F.P. Gale and R.M.M’Gonigle (eds), Nature, Production, Power: Towards an Ecological Political Economy, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishers, pp. 59–81. Ahmad Zainal Mat Isa and R. H. Krezdorn. 1998. ‘The development towards sustainable forest management in Peninsular Malaysia’, in Chin Tuck Yuan, B.H. Krezdorn and Yong Teng Koon (eds), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Malaysian-German Sustainable Forest Management and Conservation Project in Peninsular Malaysia, 11–12 Feb., Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: Forestry Department. Aiken, S.R. 1994. Imperial Belvederes: The Hill Stations of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Aiken, S.R. and C.H. Leigh. 1992. Vanishing Rain Forests: The Ecological Transition in Malaysia, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Aiken, S.R., C.H. Leigh, T.R. Leinbach and M.R. Moss. 1982. Development and Environment in Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore: McGraw-Hill. Akashi, Yoji. [n.p.]. ‘The Watanabe Gunsei in Occupied Malaya and Singapore, 1941–43’. Paper presented at the 14th Conference of the International Association of the Historians of Asia, 21–24 May 1996, Bangkok. Akerele, O. 1991. ‘Medicinal plants: policies and priorities’, in Akerele, Heywood and Synge (eds), The Conservation of Medicinal Plants, pp. 3–11. Akerele, O., V. Heywood and H. Synge (eds). 1991. The Conservation of Medicinal Plants, Proceedings of an International Consultation, 21–27 March 1988, Chiang Mai, Cambridge: CUP. Allen, J. de V. 1968. ‘The Kelantan rising of 1915: Some thoughts on the concept of resistance in British Malayan history’, JSEAH, 9, v, pp. 241–257. Andaya, B. Watson. 1979. Perak, the Abode of Grace: A Study of an Eighteenth Century Malay State, Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Andaya, B. Watson and L. Andaya. 2001. A History of Malaysia (First published 1982), Revised edition, London: Palgrave. Anderson, D. and R. Grove. 1989. Conservation in Africa: People, Policies and Practice. Cambridge: CUP. Anderson, J. 1971. Mission to the East Coast of Sumatra in 1823, (First published 1826, Edinburgh and London), Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Annandale, N. and H.C. Robinson. 1903. ‘Contributions to the ethnography of the Malay Peninsula, Pt 1, Semang and Sakai tribes’, in Fasciculi Malayenses, London: Longmans, Green for Liverpool University Press. Anon. [by a Lady]. 1892. ‘A visit to a Sakai camp’, Selangor Journal, I, No. 5, 18 Nov., pp. 68–69. —— 1892. ‘The Sakais of Selangor’, Selangor Journal, I, No.7, 6 Dec., pp. 94–101. —— 1892. ‘Shooting in Selangor’, Selangor Journal, I, No. 6, 2 Dec., p. 90. —— 1893. ‘The Selangor Museum’, Selangor Journal, I, No. 18, 19 May, pp. 281–282 —— 1893. ‘Some notes about seladang’, Selangor Journal, I, No. 24, 10 Aug., pp. 382–384. —— 1893. ‘Selangor Scientific Society’, Selangor Journal, I, No. 10, 7 Oct., pp. 150–155. —— [‘Weary Yet Hopeful’]. 1893. ‘The proposed regulations relating to smelting houses and charcoal burners’, Selangor Journal, II, No. 7, 15 Dec., pp. 103–104. —— [W.S.]. 1894. ‘Through “no man’s land” to Kuala Lumpur’, Selangor Journal, II, No. 10, 26 Jan. pp. 151–153. —— [‘Jungle Wallah’]. 1894. ‘Charcoal fiends’, Selangor Journal, II, No. 12, 23 Feb. pp. 183–184. —— [E.J.R.]. 1894. ‘Round about our village’, Selangor Journal, II, No. 13, 9 March, p. 206. —— 1894.‘Notes of the Resident’s visits to the districts in Selangor’, Pt I, Selangor Journal, II, No. 13, 9 March, pp. 201–205; Pt II, No. 16, 20 April, pp. 255–258; Pt III, No.20, 20 June, pp. 342– 345; Pt IV, No. 22, 13 July, pp. 339–361; Pt V, No. 24, 10 Aug. 397–400; Pt VI, No. 25, 24 Aug., pp. 412–415; Pt VII, No. 26, 7 Sept. pp. 429–432. —— 1894. ‘Klang as it is’, Selangor Journal, vol. II, No. 18, 18 May, pp. 288–289. —— 1894. ‘Notes and news’, II, No. 24, 10 Aug., p. 383. —— 1897. ‘Sakai tribes in Selangor: Kuala Langat district’, Selangor Journal, V, No. 23, 23 July, pp. 378–382; No. 24, 6 Aug., pp. 392–397; No. 25, 20 Aug., pp. 413–414. —— 1897. ‘The late Captain Syers’, Selangor Journal, V, No. 23, 23 July, pp. 372–374. —— 1924. ‘Diversity of a forest officer’s work in India’, Journal of the Cambridge University Forestry Association, II, ii, pp. 10–12.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 444 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

444

—— 1934. [‘Palia Dorai’] 1934. ‘Hunting experiences in Malaya’, British Malaya, 9, v, p. 92. —— 1937. Review of T. Hubback, Principles of Wild Life Conservation, London, 1937, in JSPFE, n.s., vol. 31, pp. 78–79. —— [‘Pelandok’]. 1938. ‘Seladang hunting in Pahang’, Malayan Forester, 7, ii, pp. 61–71. —— 1941. ‘Forest research 1940’, Malayan Forester, 10, iii, p. 150. —— 1954. ‘Roll of honor’, Malayan Forester, 17, pp. 70–72. —— 1956. ‘Retirement: Edward John Shrubshall’, Malayan Forester, 19, pp. 2–3. Appanah, S. 1998. ‘Management of natural forests’, in S. Appanah and J.M. Turnbull (eds), A Review of Dipterocarps, Taxonomy, Ecology and Silviculture, Jakarta: CIFOR, pp. 139–155. Appanah, S. and G. Weinland. 1990. ‘Will the management systems for hill dipterocarp forests stand up?’ Journal of Tropical Forest Science, 3, ii, pp. 140–158. Appanah, S., G. Weinland, H. Bossel and H. Krieger. 1990. ‘Are tropical rain forests non-renewable? An inquiry through modelling’, Journal of Tropical Forest Science, 2 (1990) pp. 331–348. Appanah, S., F.S.P. Ng and Roslan Ismail (eds). 1991. Malaysian Forestry and Forest Products Research: Proceedings of the Conference, 3–4 Oct. 1990, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM Appanah, S., Thang Hooi Chiew, Samsudin Musa and Ismail Parlan (eds). 1997. Forest Management Certification Workshop Proceedings, 12–13 Dec. 1996, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM and Forestry Department. Arasaratnam, S. 1986. Merchants, Companies and Commerce on the Coromandel Coast, 1650–1740, Delhi: OUP. Arditti, J. 1989. ‘Kwan Koriba: Botanist and soldier’, Gardens’ Bulletin, 42, i, pp. 1–17. Arnold, D. [n.p.], ‘Conceptualizing the “environment”: The case of early 19th century Asia’. Paper presented at the International Conference on Forest and Environmental History of the British Empire and Commonwealth, 19–21 March 2003, University of Sussex, UK. Arnot, D.B. 1929. ‘Timber Extraction in Johor’, Empire Forestry Journal, 8, ii, pp. 233–237. Arnot, D.B. and J.S. Smith. 1937. ‘Shifting cultivation in Brunei and Trengganu’, Malayan Forester, 6, i, pp. 13–17. Arshad Ayub. 1979. ‘National agricultural policy and its implications on forest development in the country’, Malayan Forester, 42, iv, pp. 348–353. Ashraf Abdullah. 1994. ‘Amanah Saham Pahang Berhad identified as logging offender’, NST, 21 April. —— 1994. ‘State firm biggest logging offender’, NST, 19 April. —— 1998. ‘Ensuring effective EIA for logging via new guidelines’, NST, 3 Aug. Ashton, P.S., T.J. Givnish and S. Appanah. 1988. ‘Staggered flowering in the Dipterocarpaceae: New insights into floral induction and the evolution of mass fruiting in the aseasonal tropics’, The American Naturalist, 132, i, pp. 44–66. Ashworth, W. 1996. ‘Emblematic natural history of the Renaissance’, in Jardine et al. (eds), Cultures of Natural History, pp. 17–37. Awang Noor Abdul Ghani. 1996. ‘Forest concessions, revenue systems and timber trade’, in Proceedings of the CAP-SAM National Conference: ‘The State of the Malaysian Environment’, 5–9 Jan., Penang: CAP-SAM, pp. 394–400. Azam Aris, 1994. ‘Missing the wood for the trees’, The Edge, 19 Sept. Azizol Abdul Kadir and Rasadah Mat Ali. 1998. ‘Medicinal plants in Malaysia: Their potential and utilization’, in M.N.B. Nair, Mohd Hamami Sahari and Zaidon Ashaari (eds), Sustainable Management of Non-Wood Forest Products, Proceedings of an International Workshop, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, 14–17 Oct. 1997, Serdang: Universiti Putra Malaysia Press, pp. 44–48. Baharuddin Ghazali. [n.d.]. ‘Peninsular Malaysia’s timber industry in perspective’, in Proceedings: Malaysian Timber Marketing Conference, Ministry of Primary Industries, Organized by the Malaysian Timber Industries Board, 6–7 Dec. 1983, Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Primary Industries, pp. 48–54. Baidura Ahmad. 1994. ‘Stepping up info drive in Europe on timber industry’, New Sunday Times, 26 Nov. —— 1994. ‘Putting timber in the proper light’, NST, 15 Dec. Bailey, T.C. and T.N. Headland. 1991. ‘The tropical rainforest: Is it a productive environment for human foragers?’ Human Ecology, 19, ii , pp. 261–285.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 445 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Bibliography

•

445

Balasingam, E. 1965. ‘Report on the conference of nature and natural resources in tropical Southeast Asia, 29 Nov.- 4 Dec.’, Bangkok, MNJ, 19, i, pp. 242–243. Balestier, J. 1848. ‘View of the state of agriculture in the British possessions in the Straits of Malacca’, JIA, 2, pp. 139–150. Banks, H. H. ( ed.). ‘Palia Dorai’. 1934. ‘Hunting elephant in Negeri Sembilan’, Pt I, British Malaya 9, vi, pp. 126–128; Pt II, 9, vii, pp. 143–145. —— 1934. ‘Hunting seladang in Malaya’, Pt III, British Malaya, 9, viii, pp. 163–165. —— 1935. ‘Hunting seladang in Malaya’, Pt IV, British Malaya, 9, ix, pp. 195–196. —— 1935. ‘Hunting in Ulu Pahang’, Pt I, British Malaya, 9, xi, pp. 235–237; Pt II, 9, xii, pp. 261– 263; Pt III, 10, i, pp. 19–20; Pt IV, 10, ii, pp. 45–46; Pt V, 10, iii, pp. 71–72; Pt VI, 10, iv, pp. 93–95; Pt VII, 10, v, p. 123. Barbier, E.B., J.C. Burgess, J. Bishop and B. Aylward. 1994. The Economics of Tropical Timber Trade, London: Earthscan. Barbier, E. B, J. C. Burgess, J. Bishop, B. Aylward and C. Bann. 1993. The Economic Linkages between the International Trade in Tropical Timber and Sustainable Managent of Tropical Forests, Final Report, ITTO, London: IIED. Barlow, C. 1978. The Natural Rubber Industry: Its Development, Technology and Economy in Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Barlow, H.S. 1985. ‘The Malayan Nature Society/Star Endau Rompin Expedition’, JMBRAS, 58, ii, pp. 135–142. —— 2000. ‘A contribution towards a history of MNS: Before our foundation’, Malaysian Naturalist, 54, i, pp. 17–23. Barnard, R.C. 1933. ‘The sakai in Trolak Forest Reserve’, Malayan Forester 2, i, pp. 18–20. —— 1950. ‘Elements of Malayan silviculture, 1950: Lowland dipterocarp forests’, Malayan Forester, 13, iii, pp. 122–129. Barr, P. 1977. Taming the Jungle: The Men Who Made British Malaya, London: Secker and Warburg. Barton, G. 2001. ‘Empire forestry and the origins of environmentalism’, Journal of Historical Geography, 27, iv, pp. 529–552. Bassett, D.K. 1965. ‘Anglo-Dutch relations, 1786–1795’, JMBRAS, 38, ii, pp.183–212. —— 1989. ‘Anglo-Dutch relations, 1686–1765’, JMBRAS, 62, ii, pp. 1–17. Bastin, J. 1965. The British in West Sumatra, 1685–1825, Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press. —— 1990. ‘Sir Stamford Raffles and the study of natural history in Penang, Singapore and Indonesia’, JMBRAS, 63, ii, pp. 1–25. —— (intro.) [2002]. The William Farquhar Collection of Natural History Drawings, vol.1, Singapore: Goh Geok Khim. Bastin, J. and P. Rohatgi. 1979. Prints of Southeast Asia in the India Office Library: The East India Company in Malaysia and Indonesia, 1786–1824, London: HMSO. Bauer, P.T. 1961.‘The workings of the rubber regulation’, in T.H. Silcock (ed.), Readings in Malayan Economics, Singapore: Eastern University Press, pp. 242–267. Baumgarten, F.L. 1849. ‘Agriculture in Malacca’, JIA, 3, pp. 707–723. Beaglehole, J.H. 1976. The District: A Study in Decentralization in West Malaysia, Hull Monographs on South-East Asia, No. 6, London: OUP. Beer, G. 1996. ‘Looking the other way’, in Jardine et al. (eds), Cultures of Natural History, pp. 322–337. Begbie, P.J. 1967. The Malay Peninsula (First published 1834, Madras), Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Belgrave, W.N.C. 1930. ‘The effects of cover crops on soil moisture’, The Malayan Agricultural Journal, 18, pp. 492–496. Berger, R. 1990. Malaysia’s Forests: A Resource Without a Future? Chichester: Packard Publishing House. Berry, A.J. 1973. ‘Obituary: Professor E. Balasingam’, MNJ, 26, pp. 72–73. Betterton, C. 1982. ‘Endau-Rompin: A case for conservation’, in Development and the Environmental Crisis: A Malaysian Case. Proceedings of a Symposium, 16–20 Sept.1978, Penang: CAP, pp. 91–93. Bird, I. 1967. The Golden Chersonese and the Way Thither (First published 1883, London), Kuala Lumpur: OUP.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 446 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

446

Bonney, R. 1971. Kedah, 1771–1821, Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Boomgaard, P. 1993. ‘Protection de la nature en Indonésie pendant la fin de la période coloniale (1889–1949)’, in J. Pouchepadass (ed.), Colonisations et Environnement, Paris: Société Française d’Histoire d’Outre-Mer, 80, i, pp. 307–344. —— 1994. ‘Colonial forest policy in Java in transition, 1865–1916’, in R. Cribb (ed.), The Late Colonial State in Indonesia: Political and Economic Foundations of the Netherlands East Indies, 1880–1942, Verhandelingen, 163, Leiden: KITLV, pp. 117–137. —— [n.p.]. ‘In the shadow of rice: Roots and tubers in Indonesia, 1500–1950’, Program in Agrarian Studies Colloquium Series, 1998, Yale University. —— 1999. ‘Oriental nature, its friends and its enemies: Conservation of nature in late-colonial Indonesia, 1889–1949’, Environment and History, 5, pp. 257–292. Boomgaard, P., F. Colombijn and D. Henley 1997. Paper Landscapes: Explorations in the Environmental History of Indonesia, Leiden: KITLV Press. Bowring, P. 1977. ‘A measure of confusion’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 2 Dec. Braganza, G.C. 1990. ‘Philippine community-based management: Options for sustainable development’, in Parnwell and Bryant (eds), Environmental Change in South-East Asia, pp. 311–329. Bravo, M. 1996. ‘Ethnological encounters’, in Jardine et al. (eds), Cultures of Natural History, pp. 338–357. Bredin, A.E.C. 1961. The Happy Warriors, Gillingham, Dorset: Blackmore. British Malaya. 1936. ‘What Malaya is saying’, 11, iii, pp. 73–74. Brockway, L.H. 1979. Science and Colonial Expansion: The Role of the British Royal Botanic Gardens, New York: Academic Press. Brookfield, H. and Y. Byron. 1990. ‘Deforestation and timber extraction in Borneo and the Malay Peninsula: The record since 1965’, Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions, I, i, pp. 42–56. Brookfield, H., L. Potter and Y. Byron. 1995. In Place of the Forest: Environmental and SocioEconomic Transformation in Borneo and the Eastern Malay Peninsula, Tokyo: The United Nations University Press. Brosius, J.P. 1999. ‘Green dots, pink hearts: Displacing politics from the Malaysian rain forest’, American Anthropologist, 101, i, pp. 36–57. Brown, C.C. (trans.). 1979. Sejarah Melayu (Malay Annals), (First published JMBRAS, 1953), Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Brown, S., A.J.R. Gillespie and A.E. Lugo. 1991. ‘Biomass of tropical forests of South and Southeast Asia’, Canadian Journal for Forest Research, 21, pp. 111–117. Browne, F.G. 1932. ‘Pahang river trips’, Malayan Forester, 1, pp. 233–240. —— 1933. ‘The control of Malayan forest insects’, Malayan Forester, 2, iv, pp. 172–175. —— 1949. ‘Storm forest in Kelantan’, Malayan Forester, 12, pp. 28–31. Bruenig, E.F. 1985. ‘Deforestation and its ecological implications for the rain forests in South East Asia’, in The Future of Tropical Rain Forests in South-East Asia, Commission on Ecology, IUCN, Environmentalist, 5, Supplement No. 10, pp. 17–26. —— 1996. Conservation and Management of Tropical Rainforests: An Integrated Approach to Sustainability, Oxford: CAB International. Bryant. R. L. 1994.‘Fighting over forests: Political reform, peasant resistance and the transformation of forest management in late colonial Burma’, Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 32, ii, pp. 245–249. —— 1997. The Political Ecology of Forestry in Burma, 1824–1994, London: Hurst. Bryant, R.L., J. Rigg and P. Stott (eds). 1993. ‘The political ecology of Southeast Asian forests: Transdisciplinary discourses’, in Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters, Special Issue, 3, ivvi, pp. 101–303. Buckley, C.B. 1965. An Anecdotal History of Old Times in Singapore (First published 1902, Singapore), Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press. Buckley, T.A. 1932. The Damars of the Malay Peninsula, Malayan Forest Records, No. 11, Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer. Bullock, J.A. 1973. ‘Opening Speech’ [President of the Malayan Nature Society], in Soepadmo and Singh (eds), Proceedings of the Symposium on Biological Resources and National Development, pp. 1–2.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 447 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Bibliography

•

447

—— 1973. ‘Preface’, in Soepadmo and Singh (eds), Proceedings of the Symposium on Biological Resources and National Development, pp. iii-iv. Burgess, P.F. 1954. ‘Some elephant & tiger shooting experiences’, Malayan Forester, 17, pp. 63–69. —— 1969. ‘Ecological factors in hill and mountain forests of the States of Malaya’, MNJ, 22, pp. 119–128. —— 1971. ‘The effects of logging on hill dipterocarp forests’, MNJ, 24, pp. 231–237. —— 1973, ‘The impact of commercial forestry in hill forests of the Malay Peninsula’, in Soepadmo and Singh (eds), Proceedings of the Symposium on Biological Resources and National Development, pp. 131–136. Burkill, I.H. 1927. ‘Botanical collectors, collections and collecting places in the Malay Peninsula’, The Gardens’ Bulletin, Straits Settlements, 4 , iv & v, pp. 116–192. —— 1959. Botanic Gardens and Conservation in Malaya, Singapore: Singapore Government Press. —— 1966. A Dictionary of the Economic Products of the Malay Peninsula (First published 1936, London), Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives, Kuala Lumpur, for the Governments of Malaysia and Singapore, 2 vols. Burkill, I.H. and Mohamed Haniff. 1930. Malay Village Medicine, The Gardens’ Bulletin, Straits Settlements, 6, ii. Burley, J. and P.S. Bacon, 1996. ‘Foundations for sustainable management of rain forest in Southeast Asia: An overview of the ODA-FRIM-CFO research programme’, in Norhara Hussein, P.S. Bacon, Khoo Kean Choon (eds), Forestry and Forest Products Research, Proceedings of the Third Conference, 3–4 Oct. 1995, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM, vol. I, pp. 1–12. Burn-Murdoch, A.M.1908. ‘Forests of Malaya’, in Wright and Cartwright (eds), Twentieth Century Impressions of British Malaya, pp. 329–330. —— 1911. ‘Forests in the Federated Malay States’, Indian Forester, 37, i, pp. 28–30. Burns, P.L. (selected and intro.). 1971. R.J. Wilkinson (ed.), Papers on Malay Subjects (First published 1907, Revised 1923), Kuala Lumpur: OUP. —— (ed.). 1976. The Journal of J.W.W. Birch: First British Resident to Perak, 1874–1875, Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Butcher, J.G. 1979. The British in Malaya, 1880–1941: The Social Life of a European Community in Colonial Southeast Asia, Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Caldwell, L.K. 1996. International Environmental Policy: From the Twentieth to the Twenty-First Century, Durham: Duke University. Callicott J.B. and R.T. Ames. 1989. ‘Introduction: The Asian traditions as a conceptual resource for environmental philosophy’, in J.B. Callicott and R.T. Ames, Nature in Asian Traditions of Thought: Essays in Environmental Philosophy, Albany, NY: State University of New York, pp. 1–21. Callister, J. D. 1992. Illegal Tropical Timber Trade: Asia Pacific, Cambridge: Traffic International. Cameron, J. 1965. Our Tropical Possessions in Malayan India (First published 1865, London), Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Cameron, O. 1990. ‘Japan and South-East Asia’s environment’, in Parnwell and Bryant (eds), Environmental Change in South-East Asia, pp. 67–94. Campbell, A. 1953. Jungle Green, London: George Allen & Unwin. Campbell, J.A.G. 1895. ‘Sakais of Selangor’, Selangor Journal, II, No. 15, 5 April, pp. 240–244. Cant, R. G. 1973. An Historical Geography of Pahang, Mongraph No. 4, Singapore: MBRAS. Carey, I. 1976. Orang Asli: The Aboriginal Tribes of Peninsular Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Carrier, C.L. 1963. ‘The illegal cultivation of Forest Reserves and State Land in Perak’, Malayan Forester, 26, ii, pp. 221–224. Casson, A. and K. Obidzinski. [n.p.]. ‘From New Order to regional autonomy: Shifting dynamics of “illegal logging”, in Kalimantan, Indonesia’. Paper presented at the Resource Management in Asia-Pacific Conference, 9–11 April 2001, ANU, Canberra. Cerruti, G.B. 1908. My Friends the Savages: Among the Sakais in the Malay Peninsula: Notes and Observations by a Perak Settler… (trans.), I. S. Sanpietro, Como: Tipografia Cooperativa Comense. Chai Hon-Chan. 1964. The Development of British Malaya, 1896–1909, Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Chan Ngai Weng. 1986. ‘Drought trends in northwestern Peninsular Malaysia: Is less rain falling?’ Wallaceana, 44, pp. 8–9.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 448 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

448

Chapman, F.S. 1949. The Jungle is Neutral, London: Chatto & Windus. Charles, D. 1992. ‘World Bank bows to pressure over rain forests’, New Scientist, 6 Oct. 1990, republished in The Endangered Rainforests: The Fight for Survival, vol. 1, Penang: World Rainforest Movement, p. 97. Chasen, F.N. 1935. A Handlist of Malaysian Birds. Bulletin of the Raffles Museum, No. 11, pp. 1– 389. Chasle, R. 1991. ‘The ethical approach to ecology and the environment’, Abstracts from some papers at the Edinburgh Conference, Commonwealth Human Ecology Council Journal, 10, pp. 27–28. Cheah Boon Kheng. 1980. ‘The social impact of the Japanese Occupation of Malaya’, in A.W. McCoy, South-East Asia Under Japanese Occupation, Monograph Series, No. 22, New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asia Studies, pp. 99–124. Cheng Li and S.S. Yoga. 1999. ‘Swallowed by economic concerns’, Star, 19 Oct. Chin Kee Onn. 1976. Malaya Upside Down (First published 1946, Singapore), Kuala Lumpur: Federal Publications. Chin, S.C. 1989. ‘Managing Malaysia’s forests for sustained production’, Wallaceana, 55 and 56, pp. 1–11. —— 1989. ‘Looking after our forests’, Star, 28 Dec. 1988, Reproduced in Asia Pacific Forest Industries, Feb., pp.14–17. Chin Tuck Yuan. 1998. ‘Overview of the Malaysian-German Project on sustainable forest management and conservation in Peninsular Malaysia’, in Chin Tuck Yuan, B.H. Krezdorn and Yong Teng Koon (eds), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Malaysian-German Sustainable Forest Management and Conservation Project in Peninsular Malaysia, 11–12 Feb., Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM and Forestry Department. Clements, F.E. 1916. Plant Succession: An Analysis of the Development of Vegetation, Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institute. Clifford, H. 1897. ‘A journey through the Malay states of Trengganu and Kelantan’, Geographical Journal, 9, i, pp. 1–37. —— 1898. Studies in Brown Humanity: Being Scrawls and Smudges in Sepia, White, and Yellow, London: Grant Richards. —— 1961. ‘Expedition to Trengganu and Kelantan’, JMBRAS, 34, i, pp. 1–162. Clodd, H.P. 1948. Malaya’s First British Pioneer: The Life of Francis Light, London: Luzac. Clutterbuck, R. 1966. The Long, Long War: The Emergency in Malaya, 1948–1960, London: Cassell. Colchester, M. 1993. ‘The International Tropical Timber Organization: Kill or cure for the rainforest’, in S. Rietbergen (ed.), Tropical Forestry, London: Earthscan, pp. 185–207. Cole, R. 1959. ‘Temiar Senoi Agriculture: A note on aboriginal shifting cultivation in Ulu Kelantan, Malaya’, Malayan Forester, 22, Pt I, pp. 191–201; Pt II, pp. 260–270. Collins, E.F. 2001.‘Multinational capital, new order “development”, and democratization in South Sumatra’, Indonesia, 71, pp. 111–133. Collins, N.M., J. A. Sayer and T.C. Whitmore. 1991. The Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests: Asia and the Pacific. London: Simon & Schuster. Colombijn, F. 1997. ‘The ecological sustainability of frontier societies in eastern Sumatra’, in P. Boomgaard et al.(eds), Paper Landscapes, pp. 309–340. Comber, L. 1972. Favourite Stories from Malaysia, Hong Kong: Heinemann. Comyn-Platt, T. 1937. ‘A report on fauna preservation in Malaya’, JSPFE, 30, pp. 45–52. Coolidge, H.J. 1961. ‘Recent developments in international conservation’, Wyatt-Smith and Wycherley (eds), Nature Conservation in Western Malaysia, pp. 17–22. Corner. E.J.H. 1951. Wayside Trees of Malaya. Singapore: Government Press, 2 vols. —— 1961. ‘Introduction’, in Wyatt-Smith and Wycherley (eds), Nature Conservation in Western Malaysia, pp. 1–7. —— 1981. The Marquis: A Tale of Syonan-to, Singapore: Heinemann Asia. Cranbrook, Earl of (see also Medway) (ed.). 1988. Key Environments: Malaysia, Oxford: Pergamon. —— 1988. ‘Mammal ecology and distribution’, in Cranbrook (ed.), Key Environments: Malaysia, pp. 146–160.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 449 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Bibliography

•

449

Crawfurd, J. 1820. History of the Indian Archipelago, Edinburgh, 2 vols. —— 1849. ‘Agriculture of Singapore’, JIA, 3, Reprinted from the Singapore Chronicle, pp. 508–511. —— 1967. Journal of an Embassy from the Governor-General of India to the Courts of Siam and Cochin China (First published 1828, London), Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Cribb, R. 1988. The Politics of Environmental Protection in Indonesia, Working Paper No. 48, Clayton: Centre of Southeast Asian Studies, Monash University. —— 1997. ‘Birds of paradise and environmental politics in colonial Indonesia, 1890–1931’, in P. Boomgaard et al. (eds), Paper Landscapes, pp. 379–409 Crosby, A. 1972. The Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood. Crouch, H. 1985. Economic Change, Social Structure and Politics, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. —— 1994. ‘Industrialization and political change’, in H. Brookfield (ed.), Transformation with Industralization in Peninsular Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: OUP, pp. 14–34. Crouchley, K.W.E. 1925. ‘Mangroves’, Journal of the Cambridge University Forestry Association, 2, iii, pp. 20–26. Cubitt, G.E.S. 1920. ‘Federated Malay States’, First Empire Forestry Conference: Proceedings, Statements, London, p. 57. —— 1943. ‘Forestry in Malaya’, British Malaya, 17, pp. 225–227. Daly, D.D. 1882. ‘Survey and explorations in the native states of the Malay Peninsula, 1875–82’, Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society, 7, n.s., pp. 393–411. Dammerman, K.W. 1929. Preservation of Wild Life and Nature Reserves in the Netherlands Indies. Weltevreden: Fourth Pacific Science Congress, Bandung, Java. Dargavel, J. 1988. ‘Tropical forest history in theory and practice’, in J. Dargavel, K. Dixon and N. Semple (eds), Changing Tropical Forests: Historical Perspectives on Today’s Challenges in Asia, Australasia and Oceania. Workshop Meeting, Canberra, 16–18 May, Canberra: Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, pp. 1–16. Darling, F. 1980. ‘National Parks: A matter of survival’, Malaysian Naturalist, 33, iii and iv, pp. 8– 10. Reproduced from Parks, 4, iv, 1980. Das, D.K. 1996. The Asia Pacific Economy, New York: St. Martin’s. Dasmann, R.F. 1988.‘Towards a biosphere consciousness’, in Worster, (ed.), The Ends of the Earth pp. 277–288. Dauvergne, P. 2001. Loggers and Degradation in the Asia-Pacific: Corporations and Environmental Management, Cambridge: CUP. Davison, G.W.H. 1982. ‘How much forest is there?’ Malayan Naturalist, 35, i and ii, pp. 11–12. Davison, G.W.H, S. Kumaran, D. Sharma and Yeap Chin Aik. 1998. ‘Assessment of wildlife and its management in relation to forestry in the pilot area of the Malaysian-German sustainable management and conservation project’, in Chin et al. (eds), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Malaysian-German Sustainable Forest Management and Conservation Project in Peninsular Malaysia, pp. 129–150 Dennys, F.O.B. 1926. ‘Tigers and buffaloes’, British Malaya, 1, v, pp. 143, 152. ——1930. ‘A strange jungle bag’, British Malaya, 5, i, p. 17. Dentan, R.K. 1968. The Semai: A Nonviolent People of Malaya, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Dentan R.K., K.M. Endicott, A.G. Gomes and M.B. Hooker. 1997. Malaysia and the ‘Original People’: A Case Study of the Impact of Development on Indigenous Peoples, Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Desch, H.E. 1931. ‘Annual Report of the Forest Administration, FMS 1930’, Empire Forestry Journal, 10, pp. 320–323. ——1938. ‘The forests of the Malay Peninsula and their exploitation’, The Malayan Forester, 7, iv, pp. 169–180. Desch, H.E. and A.V. Thomas. 1940. Timber Utilization in Malaya, Malayan Forest Records, No. 13, Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer. Desmond, R. 1982. The Indian Museum, 1801–1879, London: The India Office Library, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. —— 1992. The European Discovery of the Indian Flora, Oxford: OUP.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 450 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

450

—— 1995. Kew: The History of the Royal Botanic Gardens, London: Harvill Press/The Royal Botanic Gardens. Dipper, S. (ed.). 1997. Silviculture in the Tropical Rain Forest: An Historical Analysis of Success and Failures, Annotated abstracts by H.C. Dawkins, Oxford: Oxford Forestry School. Dobbs, S. 2002. Tuan Djek: A Biography, Singapore: Times Books International. Dobby, E.H.G. 1973. Southeast Asia (First published 1950), London: University Press. —— 1953. ‘Recent settlement changes in South Malaya’, Malayan Journal of Tropical Geography, 1, pp. 1–8. Dodge, N.1980. ‘Population estimates for the Malay Peninsula in the nineteenth century, with special reference to the East Coast states’, Population Studies, 34, iii, pp. 437–475. —— 1981. ‘The Malay-Aborigine nexus under Malay rule’, BKI, 137, i, pp. 1–16. Doggett, H. 1976. ‘Conservation and the convention on international trade in endangered species’, Malayan Naturalist, 2, iii and iv, pp. 10–12. Douglas, F.W. 1922. ‘Through an unknown corner of Pahang with H. Clifford in 1897’, JSBRAS, 85, pp. 135–139. Dove, M. 1985. ‘The agroecological mythology of the Javanese and the political economy of Indonesia’, Indonesia, 39, pp. 1–36. Drabble, J. 1973. Rubber in Malaya, 1876–1922, Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Drayton, R. 2000. Nature’s Government: Science, Imperial Britain, and the ‘Improvement’ of the World, New Haven: Yale University Press. Dunn, F.L. 1979. Rain-Forest Collectors and Traders: A Study of Resource Utilization in Modern and Ancient Malaya, Monograph No. 5, Kuala Lumpur: MBRAS. Durai Raja Singam, S. 1955. ‘Cultural revival in Malaya’, Malayan Historical Society, 2, ii, pp. 131–137 Durairaj, G. 1977. ‘The vital role of our forests’, Business Times, 10 Sept. Durant, C.C.L. 1937. ‘A plea for uniformity on silvicultural terminology’, Malayan Forester, 6, ii, pp. 44–56. Earl, G.W. 1971. The Eastern Seas (First published 1837, London), Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Eccleston, B. and D. Potter. 1996. ‘Environmental NGOs and different political contexts in SouthEast Asia: Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam’, in Parnwell and Bryant (eds), Environmental Change in South-East Asia, pp. 49–66. Ecologist. 1972. ‘A Blue Print for Survival’, 2, i, pp. 1–43. Edgar, A.T. and E.O. Shebbeare. 1961. ‘The Malayan Nature Society, 1940–1961’, in Wyatt-Smith and Wycherley, Nature Conservation in Western Malaysia, pp. 11–13. Edmunds, D. and E. Wollenberg. 2001. ‘Historical perspectives on forest policy change in Asia: An introduction’, Environmental History, 6, ii, pp. 190–213. Edwards, J.P. 1947. ‘Malayan timbers for export’. Paper submitted to the Fifth Empire Forestry Conference, London, Malayan Forester, 11, i , pp. 33–36. Elagupillay, S. 1998. ‘Gazettement of protected areas in Peninsular Malaysia’, Journal of Wildlife and Parks, 16, pp. 11–21. Emerson, R. 1964. Malaysia: A Study in Direct and Indirect Rule (First published London, 1937), Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press. Emil Salim. 1982. ‘Conservation and development’, Indonesia Circle, 8, pp. 3–8. —— 1983. ‘The politics of genetics’, Indonesia Circle, 31, pp.17–22. Emmanuel, T. 1999. ‘Farmers continue to clear illegal land, causing landslides’, NST, 3 April. Endicott, K. 1979. Batek Negrito Religion: The World-View of a Hunting and Gathering People of Peninsular Malaysia, Oxford: Clarendon Press. —— 1979. ‘The impact of economic modernisation on the Orang Asli (aborigines) of northern Peninsular Malaysia’, in J. C. Jackson and M. Rudner (eds), Issues in Malaysian Development, Singapore: Heinemann Educational Books, pp. 167–203. —— 1970. An Analysis of Malay Magic, Singapore: OUP. —— 1983. ‘The effects of slave raiding on the aborigines of the Malay Peninsula’, in A. Reid (ed.), Slavery, Bondage and Dependency in Southeast Asia, St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press, pp. 216–245. —— 1997. ‘Batek history, interethnic relations, and subgroup dynamics’, in R. Winzeler (ed.), Indigenous Peoples and the State: Politics, Land, and Ethnicity in the Malayan Peninsula and Borneo, Monograph 48, New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asia Studies.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 451 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Bibliography

•

451

England, P. [n.p.]. ‘National agendas in Malaysia and Thailand before and after the adoption of the Authoritative Statement of Forest Principles at Rio’. Paper presented at the Asian Studies Association Australia Biennial Conference, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia, 13–16 July 1994. Evans, I.H.N. 1913. ‘Notes on the Besisi of Tamboh, Kuala Langat, Selangor’, JFMSM, 5, i . —— 1915. ‘Notes on the aboriginal inhabitants of Ijok in the district of Selama, Perak’, JFMSM, 5, iv, pp. 116–213. —— 1937. The Negritos of Malaya, Cambridge: CUP. —— 1985. ‘Perak Museum’, in Harrison (ed.), Illustrated Guide to the Federated Malay States, 1923, pp. 262–285. Fadzil Ghazali. 1993. ‘Timber producing countries need new forms of aid’, Business Times, 13 May. Faezaah Ismail. 2000. ‘Victory for the Orang Asli’, New Sunday Times, 3 April. —— 2000. ‘Other Orang Asli may also take action’, New Sunday Times, 3 April. Falconer, J. 1956. ‘Malaya’, Corona, 10, p. 31. Fenwick, W. P. 1972. ‘Education and environment’, The Ecologist, 2, viii, pp. 7–10. Fetherstonhaugh, A.H. 1951. ‘Malaya’s National Park’, Oryx, 1, pp. 198–203. —— 1952. ‘Elephant memories’, Malayan Forester, 15, i , pp. 13–18. Fisher, C.A.1964. South-East Asia: A Social, Economic and Political Geography (First published 1962), London: Methuen. Foenander, E.C. 1939. ‘Elephant hunting in Pahang’, Malayan Forester, 8, i, pp. 57–66. —— 1952. Big Game of Malaya: Their Types, Distribution and Habits, London: Batchworth. —— 1961. ‘The conservation of the Malayan elephant’, in Wyatt-Smith and Wycherley (eds), Nature Conservation in Western Malaysia, pp. 192–201. Follows, R. (with H. Popham). 1990. The Jungle Beat: Fighting Terrorists in Malaya, 1952–61, London: Cassell. Forbes, H. 1989. A Naturalist’s Wanderings in the Eastern Archipelago (First published 1885, New York), Singapore: OUP. Forsyth, T. 1996. ‘Science, myth and knowledge: Testing Himalayan environmental degradation in Thailand’, Geoforum, 27, iii, pp. 375–392. Foxworthy, F.W. 1921. Commercial Woods of the Malay Peninsula, Malayan Forest Records, 1, Singapore: Methodist Publishing House. —— 1921. Minor Forest Products of the Malay Peninsula, Malaysian Forest Records, No. 2, Singapore: Methodist Publishing House. —— 1922. Commercial Timber Trees of the Malay Peninsula, Malayan Forest Records, No. 3, Singapore: Fraser & Neave. —— 1932. Dipterocarpaceae of the Malay Peninsula, Malayan Forest Records, No. 11, Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer. Frankel, O.H. 1969. ‘Pacific centres of genetic diversity’, Malayan Forester, 32, iv, pp. 356–358. Fruin, W.M. 1992. The Japanese Enterprise System: Competitive Strategies and Cooperative Structures, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Furtado, J.I. 1979. ‘The status and future of the tropical moist forest in Southeast Asia’, in C. MacAndrews and Chia Lin Sien (eds), Developing Economies and the Environment: The Southeast Asian Experience, Singapore: McGraw-Hill, pp. 73–120. Furtado, J.I., E. Soepadmo, A. Sasekumar, R.P. Lim, Ong Siew-Lin, G. Davison and Liew Kim Seng, 1977. ‘Ecological effects of the Trengganu hydro-electric project’, Wallaceana, Supplement 1. Fyfe, A.J. 1949. ‘Gutta Percha’, Malayan Forester, 12, i, pp. 25–27. Gale, F. 1996. ‘The mysterious case of the disappearing environmentalists: The International Tropical Timber Oganization’, Capitalism, Nature and Society, 7, iii, pp. 103–117. —— 1998. ‘The tropical timber trade regime’, in The Tropical Timber Trade Regime, London: Macmillan. Gan Boon Keong and G. Weinland. 1998. ‘Multiple-use forest management and non-timber produce’, in Lee et al. (eds), Conservation, Management and Development of Forest Resources, pp. 178–194. Gascoigne, J. 1994. Joseph Banks and the English Enlightenment: Useful Knowledge and Polite Culture, Cambridge: CUP.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 452 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

452

—— 1998. Science in the Service of Empire: Joseph Banks, the British State and the Uses of Science in the Age of Revolution, Cambridge: CUP. Gaussen, H., P. Legris and F. Blasco. 1967. Bioclimats du Sud-Est Asiatique, Institut Français de Pondichéry, Pondicherry: Imprimerie de la Mission. Gilley, R. 2000. ‘Green light in the forest’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 7 Sept. Gilliland, H.B. 1961. ‘Conservation and education’, in Wyatt-Smith and Wycherley (eds), Nature Conservation in Western Malaysia, pp. 26–28. Gillis, M.1988. ‘Malaysia: Public policies and the tropical forest’, in R. Repetto and M. Gillis, Public Policies and the Misuse of Forest Resources, Cambridge: CUP, pp. 115–164. Gimlette, J.D. (ed.). 1930. (Foreword, M.Watson) ‘The medical book of Malayan medicine’, (trans.) Munshi Ismail, with the determination of drugs by I.H. Burkill, The Gardens’ Bulletin, Straits Settlements, 6, iii. —— 1971. A Dictionary of Malayan Medicine (ed. and compiled) H.W. Thomson (First published 1939, London), Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Glacken, C.J. 1967. Traces on the Rhodian Shore: Nature and Culture in Western Thought from Ancient Times to the End of the Eighteenth Century, Berkeley: University of California Press. Goh, K.C. 1980. ‘Rainfall trends and deficiencies in Peninsular Malaysia’, Oriental Geographer 24, i & ii, pp. 25–40. Golley, F.B. 1983. ‘Introduction’, in F.B. Golley (ed.), Tropical Rain Forest Ecosystems: Structure and Function (Ecosystems of the World, 14 A), Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing, pp. 1–8. —— 1983. ‘Eco-development’, in F.B. Golley (ed.), Tropical Rain Forest Ecosystems, pp. 335–344. Gómez-Pompa, A. and F.W. Burley. 1991. ‘The management of natural tropical forests’, in A. GómezPompa, T.C. Whitmore and M. Hadley (eds), Rain Forest Regeneration and Management, Man and Biosphere Series, vol. 6, Paris: Parthenon, pp. 3–18. Gopinath, A. 1991. Pahang, 1880–1933: A Political History, Monograph 18, Kuala Lumpur: MBRAS. Gould, J. 1961. Americans in Sumatra, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Graham, W.A. 1908. Kelantan: A State of the Malay Peninsula, Glasgow: James Maclehose & Sons. Grayson, A.J. 2001. ‘The desirable proportion of forest cover as viewed 100 years ago’, International Forestry Review, 3, iv, pp. 265–271. Grist, D.H. (compiler). 1936. Outline of Malayan Agriculture, Kuala Lumpur: Department of Agriculture. Grossman, L. [n.p.]. ‘The history of colonial forest policy in Jamaica from the late nineteenth century’. Paper presented at the International Conference on Forest and Environmental History of the British Empire and Commonwealth, 19–21 March 2003, University of Sussex, UK. Grove, R. 1990. ‘Colonial conservation, ecological hegemony and popular resistance: Towards a global synthesis’, in J.M. Mackenzie (ed.), Imperialism and the Natural World, Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 15–51. —— 1995. Green Imperialism: Colonial Expansion, Tropical Island Edens and the Origins of Environmentalism, 1600–1860, Cambridge: CUP. —— 1997. ‘The island and the history of environmentalism: The case of St. Vincent’, in Teich et al.(eds), Nature and Society in Historical Context, pp.148–162. Grove, R. and J. Chappell. 2000. ‘El Niño chronology and the history of global crisis during the Little Ice Age’, in El Niño-History and Crisis: Studies from the Asia Pacific Region, London: White Horse, pp. 5–34. Guha, R. 1990. ‘An early environmental debate: The making of the 1878 Forest Act’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, 27, i, pp. 65–84. Guha, S. 1999. Environment and Ethnicity in India, 1200–1991, Cambridge: CUP. Gullick, J.M. 1975. ‘Selangor 1876–1882: The Bloomfield Douglas Diary’, JMBRAS, 48, ii, pp. 1–51. —— 1985. ‘The entrepreneur in late 19th century Malay society’, JMBRAS, 58, i, pp. 59–70. —— 2000. A History of Kuala Lumpur, 1857–1939, Monograph 29, Kuala Lumpur: MBRAS. Gullick, J.M. and G. Hawkins. 1958. ‘Theodore Hubback’, Malayan Pioneers, Singapore: Eastern Universities Press, pp. 78–85. Gunalan N. and Sharif Haron. 1995. ‘11, 000 ha of forest reserves degazetted’, NST, 9 Oct. Gurmit Singh, K.S. 1982. ‘Tembeling: Winners and losers’, Malayan Naturalist, 36, ii, pp. 37–39.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 453 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Bibliography

•

453

—— 1983. ‘The saving of Taman Negara’, in Wan Sabri Wan Mansor, Rusli Mohd, Kamis Awang, Mohd Basri Hamzah and Mohd Zin Jusoh (eds), Outdoor recreation in Malaysia, Proceedings of a Seminar, 26–28 Sept., Serdang, Selangor: Universiti Pertanian Malaysia, pp. 331–341. Guyot, D, 1971. ‘The politics of land: Comparative development in two states of Malaysia’, Pacific Affairs, 44, iii, pp. 369–400. Hafner, J., 1990. ‘Forces and policy issues affecting forest use in Northeastern Thailand’, in Poffenberger, Keepers of the Forest, pp. 69–94. Haines, W. B. 1940. The Uses and Control of Natural Undergrowth (First published 1934), Kuala Lumpur: RRI Haja Maideen. [n.d.].‘Marketing challenges for sawn timber’, in Proceedings: Malaysian Timber Marketing Conference, Ministry of Primary Industries, Organized by the Malaysian Timber Industries Board, Kuala Lumpur, 6–7 Dec. 1983, Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Primary Industries, pp. 53–54. Hamann, O. 1991. ‘The joint IUCN-WWF plant conservation programme and its interest in medicinal plants’, in Akerele, et al. (eds), The Conservation of Medicinal Plants, pp. 13–22. Hanai, Shunsuke. 1995. ‘Gunsei to kigyô katsudô: Malaya-Perak-shû mangrove shinrin kaihatsu jigyô ni sokushite’, [Military Administration and Industry: with Special Reference to Mangrove Forestry in the State of Perak, Malaya], in Yasuguki Hikita (ed.), Nanpo Kyoei Ken [Southern Co-prosperity Sphere], Tokyo: Taga Shuppan, pp. 497–552. Hanitsch, R. 1969. ‘Letters of Nathaniel Wallich relating to the establishment of botanical gardens in Singapore’, JSBRAS, 65, pp. 39–48. Hannam, K. 2000. ‘Utilitarianism and the identity of the Indian Forest Service’, Environment and History, 6, pp. 205–228. Hardin, G. 1968. ‘The tragedy of the commons’, Science, 162, 13 Dec., pp. 1243–1248. Harding, A. 1996. Law, Government and the Constitution in Malaysia, The Hague: Kluwer Law International. Hargrove, E. 1989. ‘Foreword’, in Callicott and Ames, Nature: In Asian Traditions of Thought, pp. ix–xxi. Harley, C.W.S. 1949. ‘Soil erosion in Malaya’, Corona, 1, x, pp. 25–27. Haron Abu Hassan and Mohd Dusuki Mohd Nor. 1997. Sustainable Forest Management in Malaysia, Commonwealth Forestry Initiative, London: Commonwealth Secretariat. Harper, T. 1999. The End of Empire and the Making of Malaya, Cambridge: CUP. Harris, D.R. 1969. ‘Agricultural systems and the origin of agriculture’, in P. J. Ucko and G.W. Dimbleby (eds), The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, Chicago: Aldine, pp. 3–16. Harrison, C. (ed.). 1985. An Illustrated Guide to the Federated Malay States (First published 1923, London), Reprinted (intro.) P. Kratoska, Singapore: OUP. Hashim Saad. [n.p.]. ‘An overview of environmental and socio-economic aspects of tropical deforestation in Malaysia’. Paper presented to the Expert Group Meeting: ‘The Environmental and Socio-Economic Aspects of Tropical Deforestation’, 28 Jan.–3 Feb. 1986, Bangkok. Hawkins, G. 1961. ‘Conservation in Penang’, in Wyatt-Smith and Wycherley (eds), Nature Conservation in West Malaysia, pp. 156–159. Hays, S.P. 1959. Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: The Progressive Conservation Movement, 1890–1920, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Hayes, R. 1987. ‘Tropical rain forest deforestation in Central America – The hamburger connection’, in SAM, Proceedings of the Conference on ‘Forest Resources Crisis in the Third World’, pp. 378–384. Hervey, D.F.A. 1881. ‘The Endau and its tributaries’, JSBRAS, 8, pp. 93–124. Heske, F. 1938. German Forestry, New Haven: Yale University Press. Heussler, R. 1981. British Rule in Malaya: The Malayan Civil Service and its Predecessors, 1867– 1942, Oxford: Clio. Hidezo, Tanakadate. 1974. ‘Preface’ (Translation of the Japanese Preface of 1943) in C.F. Symington, Foresters’ Manual of Dipterocarps, Malayan Forest Records, No.16 (First published 1943), Kuala Lumpur: Penerbit Universiti Malaya. Hill, A.H. 1969 (anno. and trans.), The Hikayat Abdullah: An autobiography of Abdullah bin Abdul Kadir, 1794–1854, Singapore: OUP.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 454 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

454

Hill, R.D. 1977. Rice in Malaya: A Study in Historical Geography, Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Hilton, R.N. 1961. ‘Templer Park, Malaya’, in Wyatt-Smith and Wycherley(eds), Nature Conservation in Western Malaysia, pp.100–102. —— 1959.‘The basic Malay house’, JMBRAS, 29, iii, pp. 134–155. Hing Ai Yun. 1984. ‘Capitalist development, class and race’, in Syed Husin Ali, Ethnicity, Class and Development: Malaysia, International Conference on Modernization and National-Cultural Identity. Selected papers, Kuala Lumpur: Persatuan Sains Sosial Malaysia, pp. 296–328. Hirsch, P. and C. Warren (eds). 1998. The Politics of Environment in Southeast Asia: Resources and Resistance, London: Routledge. Ho Thian Hua, E. Soepadmo and T.C. Whitmore (eds). 1971. National Parks of Malaysia, MNJ, 24, iii and iv. Hobley, C.W. 1937. ‘The conservation of wild life’, Pt I, JSPFE, 32, pp. 39–49. Holman, D. 1958. Noone of the Ulu, London: Heinemann. Holttum, R.E. 1961. ‘Some thoughts from the past’, in Wyatt-Smith and Wycherley (eds), Nature Conservation in Western Malaysia, pp. 14–16. Hong, C. 1995. ‘Loggers pressing for better handling of fund’, NST, 24 Dec. Hooker, M.B. 1976. The Personal Laws of Malaysia: An Introduction, Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Hornaday, W.T. 1878.‘Account of a naturalist’s visit to the territory of Selangor’, JSBRAS, 3, pp. 124–131. —— 1993. The Experiences of a Hunter and Naturalist in the Malay Peninsula and Borneo (intro. G.M. Gullick), [Originally published as Two Years in the Jungle, Pts 3 and 4, New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1885], Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Horsfield, T. 1990. Zoological Researches in Java and the Neighbouring Islands (First published 1821–24, London), with a Memoir by J. Bastin, Singapore: OUP. Hubback, T. 1905. Elephant and Seladang Hunting in the Federated Malay States. London: Ward. —— 1908. ‘Sport: The hunting of big game’, in Wright and Cartwright (eds), Twentieth Century Impressions of Malaya, pp.164–166. —— 1924. ‘Letter from Theodore R. Hubback to the Chairman of the Fauna Society on the preservation of the fauna of Malaya’, JSPFE, 4, pp. 60–63. —— 1926. ‘Conservation of Malayan Fauna’, JSPFE , 4, pp. 35–41. —— 1930. ‘Wild life, gold and national parks’, Hubback to the Editor, Times of Malaya, 8 Dec. —— 1932. ‘Stories of a Malayan jungle’, Sunday Times, 22 May; 29 May; 5 June; 12 June; 19 June. —— 1934. ‘Wild life’, Pt I, Straits Times, 26 Oct. —— 1937. Principles of Wild Life Conservation, London: Game & Gun. —— 1938. ‘The Malayan gaur or seladang’, Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 40, i, pp. 8–19. Hummel, C. 1913. The Value of the Forests of the Federated Malay States, Kuala Lumpur: FMS Goverment Printing. Humphrey, C.R. and F. H. Buttel. 1988. Environment, Energy, and Society, Malabar, Florida: Krieger Publishing. Hurst, P. 1990. Rainforest Politics: Ecological Destruction in South-East Asia, London: Zed Books. Hutterer, K.L. 1981. ‘People and nature in the tropics: Remarks concerning ecological relationships’, in K.L. Hutterer, A.T. Rambo and G. Lovelace (eds), Cultural Values and Human Ecology in Southeast Asia. Michigan Papers on South and Southeast Asia, No. 27, Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, pp. 55–76. —— 1988. ‘The pre-history of the Asian rain forests’, in J.S. Denslow and C. Padoch (eds), People of the Tropical Rain Forest, Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 63–72. Indrani, A. 1984. ‘Alarm sounded over Malaysia’s rapid soil erosion’, Malayan Naturalist, 38, ii, pp. 2–4. Ironside, G.E. 1956. ‘Reminiscences of Mahmud’, Malayan Forester, 19, iii, pp. 153–155. Ishak Haji Muhammad. 1980. Putera Gunong Tahan, (First published 1937), (trans.) H. Aveling, The Prince of Mount Tahan, Singapore: Heinemann. Iskandar Carey. 1976. Orang Asli: The Aboriginal Tribes of Peninsular Malaya, Kuala Lumpur: OUP.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 455 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Bibliography

•

455

Ismail Awang, 1994. ‘Future directions for sustainable forestry in Peninsular Malaysia: Environmental issues’, in S. Appanah, K.L. Khoo, H.T. Chan and L.T. Hong (eds), Forestry and Forest Products Research: Proceedings of the Conference, 1–2 Nov. 1993, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM, pp.1–14. Ismail Sahid. 1985. Masalah Semasa Alam Sekitar Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor: Penerbit Universiti Kabangsaan. Jacks, G.V. and R.O. Whyte. 1939. Rape of the Earth: A World Survey of Soil Erosion, London: Faber & Faber. Jackson, J.C. 1968. Planters and Speculators: Chinese and European Enterprise in Malaya, 1786– 1921, Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press. Jacobs, M. 1988. The Tropical Rain Forest: A First Encounter (eds and trans.) R. Kruk, A.A. Oldermann et al., Berlin: Springer-Verlag. —— 1982.‘The study of minor forest products’, Flora Malesiana Bulletin, 35, pp. 3768–3782. —— 1988. ‘The Dipterocarps’, in Cranbrook (ed.), Key Environments: Malaysia, pp. 31–36. Jardine, N., J.A. Secord and E.C. Spary (eds). 1996. Cultures of Natural History, Cambridge: CUP. Jepson, P. and R. J. Whittaker. 2002. ‘Histories of protected areas: Internationalisation of conservationist values and their adoption in the Netherlands Indies (Indonesia)’, Environment and History, 8, pp. 129–172. Johns, A.D. 1986. ‘Effects of selective logging on the ecological organization of a peninsular Malaysian rain forest avifauna’, Forktail, 1, pp. 65–80. —— 1989. Timber, the Environment and Wildlife in the Malaysian Rain Forests, Final Report, University of Aberdeen: Institute of South-East Asian Biology. ——1997. Timber Production and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Rain Forests, Cambridge: CUP. Johnson, S.P. (intro. and commentary). 1993. The Earth Summit: The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), International Environmental Law and Policy Series. London: Graham and Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff. Jomo, K.S. (see also Sundaram, J.K.). 1994. ‘Malaysian forests, Japanese wood: Japan’s role in Malaysia’s deforestation’, in K.S. Jomo (ed.), Japan and Malaysian Development: In the Shadow of the Rising Sun, London: Routledge, pp. 182–210. Jones, A. 1968. ‘The Orang Asli: An outline of their progress in modern Malaya’, JSEAH, 9, pp. 286–305. Jones, D.S. 1997. ‘The “Waterfall” Botanic Garden on Pulau Pinang: The foundations of the Penang Botanic Gardens, 1884–1910’, JMBRAS, 70, ii, pp. 74–95. Jong, R. 2002. ‘Alarmed by clearing of Bukit Gasing’, Malay Mail, 9 Feb. JSPFE, 1937. ‘Review’ of T. Hubback, Principles of Wild Life Conservation (London, 1937), 31, p. 79. Juhaidi Yean Abdullah, Jahabar Sadiq, Sivakumar Kuttan, Chong See Seong, Azman Ahmad, Ahmad Sayuthi Yusoff and Zabaidah Abu Bakar. 1992. ‘Efforts against illegal logging’, NST, 27 Dec. Juhaidi Yean Abdullah, Sarban Singh and Saiful Mahadhir Nordin. 1995. ‘Concern over massive forest project in Janda Baik’, New Sunday Times, 8 Jan. Jumper, R.D.L. 1997. Power and Politics: The Story of Malaysia’s Orang Asli, Landham, Oxford: University Press of America. Kahn, J.S. 1997. ‘The middle class as a field of ethnological study’, in Muhammad Ikmal et al. (eds), Malaysia: Critical Perspectives, pp. 12–33. Kalai Selvan. 1986. ‘What’s the use of a road to Gunung Tahan?’ Star, 29 Jan. Kamaruzaman Jusoff. 1991. ‘A survey of soil disturbance from tractor logging in a hill forest in Peninsular Malaysia’, in Appanah et al. (eds), Malaysian Forestry and Forest Products Research, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM, pp.16–21. Kamaruzaman Jusoff and Nik Muhamad Majid. 1995. ‘Integrating needs of the local community to conserve biodiversity in the state of Kelantan’, Biodiversity and Conservation, 4, pp.108–114. —— 1995. ‘Kelantan government to replant damaged forest reserves’, Star, 17 Dec. Kartawinata, K., A.P. Vayda and R. Sambas Wirakusuma. 1978. ‘East Kalimantan and the Man and Biosphere Program’, Borneo Research Bulletin, 10, pp. 28–40. Kathirithamby, J. 1977. ‘Sprayers of destruction’, Letter to the Editor, NST, 5 Aug. —— 1983. ‘A survey of the natural enemies of the rice leaf planthoppers (Homoptera Delphacidae) in Peninsular Malaysia’, Department of Agriculture (Crop Protection Branch), Kuala Lumpur, pp.1–15.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 456 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

456

Kathirithamby-Wells, J. 1977. The British West Sumatran Presidency, 1760–85: Problems of Early Colonial Administration, Kuala Lumpur: Penerbit Universiti Malaya. —— 1990. ‘Introduction: An Overview’, in Kathirithamby-Wells and Villiers (eds), The Southeast Asian Port and Polity, pp. 1–16. —— 1992. The Politics of Commerce in Southeast Asia: An Historical Perspective, Inaugural Lecture, Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press. —— 1992. ‘The age of transition: The mid-eighteenth to the early nineteenth centuries’, in N. Tarling (ed.), The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia, Cambridge: CUP, vol. I, pp. 572–619. —— 1993. ‘Hulu-hilir unity and conflict: Malay statecraft in east Sumatra before the midnineteenth century’, Archipel, 45, pp. 77–96. —— [n.p.]. ‘The eighteenth-century Malay port-polity: Change and adaptation’. Paper presented at the 13th Conference of the International Association of the Historians of Asia, 5–9 Sept. 1994, Sophia University, Tokyo. —— 1995. ‘Socio-political structures and the Southeast Asian ecosystem: An historical perspective up to the mid-nineteenth century’, in O. Bruun and A. Kalland (eds), Asian Perceptions of Nature: A Critical Approach, London: Curzon Press, pp. 25–47. —— 1997. ‘Human impact on mammal populations in Peninsular Malaysia from the nineteenth to the mid-twentieth century’, in Boomgard et al. (eds), Paper Landscapes, pp. 215–248. —— 1997. ‘Siak and its changing strategies for survival, c. 1700–1870’, in A. Reid (ed.), The Last Stand of Asian Autonomies, Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 210–243. —— 1998. ‘Attitudes to natural resources and environment among the upland forest and swidden communities of Southeast Asia during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries’, in R. Grove, V. Damodaran and S. Sangwan (eds), Nature and the Orient: Essays on the Environmental History of South and Southeast Asia, Delhi: OUP, pp. 918–935. —— 1998. ‘The long eighteenth century and the new age of commerce in the Melaka Straits’, in L. Blussé and F. Gaastra (eds), On the Eighteenth Century as a Category of Asian Trade: Van Leur in Retrospect, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 57–82. —— 2001. ‘Forestry and stewardship in Southeast Asia, with special reference to Peninsular Malaysia’, in Social Changes and Forests, Proceedings of the XXI IUFRO (International Union for Forest Research Organisation) World Congress, 7–12 Aug. 2000, Kuala Lumpur, News of Forest History, No. 30, pp. 21–45. —— In press. ‘The implications of plantation agriculture for biodiversity in Peninsular Malaysia’, in M.R. Dove, P.E. Sajise and A. Doolittle (eds), Reinterpreting Nature and Culture in Southeast Asia. Kathirithamby-Wells, J. and J. Villiers (eds). 1990. The Southeast Asian Port and Polity: Rise and Demise, Singapore: Singapore University Press Kaur, A. and Shaharil T. Robert. 1981. ‘The extractive-colonial economy and the peasantry: Ulu Kelantan 1900–40’, Review of Indonesian and Malayan Affairs, 15, ii, pp. 32–91. Kennedy, P.M. 1971. ‘Imperial cable communication and strategy, 1870–1914’, English Historical Review, 86, pp. 728–752. Khondker, Habibul Haque. 2001. ‘Environment and the global civil society’, in Politics and the Environment, Special Issue, Asian Journal of Social Sciences, 29, i, pp. 53–72. Khor, M. 1992. ‘Fighting to save the rain forests and the world environment’, Interview by Jane Ayers, Los Angeles Times, n.d., in The Endangered Rainforest: The Fight for Survival, vol. 1, Penang: Rainforest Movement, pp. 77–80. Kies C.H.M.H. 1936. ‘Nature protection in the Netherlands Indies’, American Committee for International Wild Life Protection, Special Publication, No. 8, pp. 11–23. Kiew Bong Heang. 1981. ‘The need for conservation in Malaya’, Malayan Naturalist, 34, iii, pp. 14–17. —— 1984. ‘The national park system and the Blueprint for Conservation in Malaya: Promises unfulfilled’, Malayan Naturalist, 37, iii, pp. 5–6. —— 1986. ‘Assessment of the Endau-Rompin Expedition, 1895–1986’, Malayan Naturalist, 40, ii, pp. 5–9. —— 1990. ‘Conservation in Malaysia: Some observations on the environmental impact of Kenyir Dam’, Malayan Naturalist, 43, iv, pp. 11–13. —— 1994. ‘The highland road’, Malaysian Naturalist, 48, iv, pp. 23–25. —— 1996. ‘Environmental impact assessment: Ideals, realities and ethics’, Malayan Naturalist, 50, i, pp. 30–33.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 457 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Bibliography

•

457

Kiew, R. and Hood Salleh. 1991. ‘The future of rattan collecting as a source of income for Orang Asli communities’, in Appanah, et al. (eds), Malaysian Forestry and Forest Products Research, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM, pp. 121–129. King, A.W. 1939. ‘Plantation and agriculture in Malaya, with notes on the trade of Singapore’, Geographical Journal, 93, i, pp. 136–148. King, G. and J.S.Gamble. 1887–1900. ‘Materials for a flora of the Malay Peninsula’, in Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 4 vols. King, V. 1996. ‘Environmental change in Malaysian Borneo: Fire, drought and rain’, in Parnwell and Bryant(eds), Environmental Change in South-East Asia, pp. 165–189. Kitchener, H.J. 1961. ‘The bleak future for the seladang or Malayan gaur’, in Wyatt-Smith and Wycherley (eds), Nature Conservation in Western Malaysia, pp. 197–201. —— 1961. ‘The importance of protecting the Malayan tiger’, in Wyatt-Smith and Wycherley, Nature Conservation in Western Malaysia, pp. 202–206. Kloss, C. Boden. 1985, ‘Selangor Museum’, in Harrison (ed.), An Illustrated Guide to the Federated Malay States, 1923. Republished, Singapore: OUP, pp. 285–292. Knapen, H. 2001. Forests of Fortune? The Environmental History of Southeast Borneo, 1600–1880, Verhandelingen, 189, Leiden: KITLV. Koerner, L. 1996. ‘Purposes of Linnaean travel: A preliminary research report’, in Miller and Reill (eds), Visions of Empire, pp. 117–152. Koppes, C.R. 1988. ‘Efficiency, equity, esthetics: Shifting themes in American conservation’, in D. Worster (ed.), The Ends of the Earth: Perspectives on Modern Environmental History, Cambridge: CUP, pp. 330–351. Kratoska, P. 1983. ‘Ends that we cannot see: Malay Reservations in British Malaya’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 14, pp. 149–168. —— 1985. ‘The peripatetic peasant and land tenure in British Malaya’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 16, ii, pp. 15–43. —— 1988. ‘The post–1945 food shortage in British Malaya’, JSBRAS, 19, i, pp. 27–47. Krishnamoorthy, M., K. Vijayan and Sufi Yusoff. 1993. ‘Loggers fined RM24 m: Joint operations with army and police’, NST, 29 Jan. Kua Kia Soong. 1999. ‘Bukit Sungai Putih development: Many questions still not answered’, NST, 4 March. Kumar, D. 1990. ‘The evolution of colonial science in India and the East India Company’, in J.M. Mackenzie (ed.), Imperialism and the Natural World, Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 51–66. Kumar, R. 1986. The Forest Resources of Malaysia: Their Economics and Development, Singapore: OUP. Kumari, Kanta. 1995. ‘Mainstreaming biodiversity conservation: A Peninsular Malaysian case’, International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 2, iii, pp. 182–198. —— 1995. Is Malaysian Forest Policy and Legislation Conducive to Multi-Use Management of Forest Resources? Norwich/London: Centre for Social and Economic Research in Global Environment, University of East Anglia–University College, London. Kumari, Kanta, Dat Yit May, Tuan Marina Tuan Ibrahim and Idris Shafie. 1998. ‘Economic significance of medicinal plants in Peninsular Malaysia’, in Lee et al. (eds), Conservation, Management and Development of Forest Resources, pp. 227–272. Kunstadter, P. and E.C. Chapman. 1979. ‘Problems of shifting cultivation and economic development in northern Thailand’, in Kunstadter et al. (eds), Farmers in the Forest, pp. 3–23. Kunstadter, P., E. C. Chapman and Sanga Sabhasri (eds). 1978. Farmers in the Forest: Economic Development and Marginal Agriculture in Northern Thailand, Honolulu, Hawaii: East-West Population Institute, University of Hawaii. Kuper, A. 1997. ‘On human nature: Darwin and the anthropologists’, in Teich et al. (eds), Nature and Society in Historical Context, pp. 274–294. Kuttan, Sivakumar. 1992. ‘Probe on timber tycoon: Wong being investigated for having undeclared goods’, NST, 20 Dec. Lai, M. 1992. ‘Anwar orders probe on timber tycoon to proceed’, NST, 21 Dec. —— 1992. ‘Sultan: I did not pressure department’, NST, 21 Dec. Laidin Alang Musa. 1955. ‘The background of the Ulu Langat Valley’, Malayan Historical Journal, 2, ii, pp. 8–11.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 458 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

458

Lake, H.W. and H.J. Kelsall. 1894. ‘A Journey on the Sembrong River: From Kuala Indau to Batu Pahat’, JSBRAS, 26, pp. 1–15. —— 1894. ‘The camphor tree and camphor language of Johore, JSBRAS, 26, pp. 35–40. Leary, J. 1989. ‘The importance of the Orang Asli in the Malayan Emergency 1948–1960’, Working Paper 56, Clayton: Centre for Southeast Asian Studies, Monash University. Lee, D. 1980. The Sinking Ark: Environmental Problems in Malaysia and Southeast Asia, Kuala Lumpur: Heinemann. Lee, H.P. 1995. Constitutional Conflicts in Contemporary Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Lee Su See, Dan Yit Meng, I. D. Gauld and J. Bishop. 1998. Conservation, Management and Development of Forest Resources, Proceedings of the Malaysian-United Kingdom Programme Workshop, 21–24 Oct. 1996, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM. Leech, H.W.C. 1879. ‘Ascent of Bujang Malacca’, JSBRAS, 2, pp. 225–227. —— 1879. ‘About Kinta’, Pt I, JSBRAS, 4, pp. 21–33. Leigh, C.H. and K.S. Low. 1973. ‘An appraisal of the flood situation in West Malaysia’, in Soepadmo and Singh (eds), Proceedings of the Symposium on Biological Resources and National Development, pp. 57–72. —— 1978. ‘The flood hazard in Peninsular Malaysia’, Pacific Viewpoint, 19, i, pp. 47–61. Lenton, G.M. 1978. ‘Owls as rat controllers: A preliminary report’, Planter, 54, pp. 72–83. Leong Yueh Kwong. 1984. ‘The making of a national park: Some problems and uses’, Malayan Naturalist, 37, iii, pp. 11–15. —— 1991. ‘Environmental impact assessment and land conversion’, in R. Kiew (ed.), The State of Nature Conservation in Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: Malayan Nature Society/International Development and Research Centre, Canada Letessier, C. and Miss Apost. 1892. ‘The Sakais of Selangor’, Selangor Journal, I, No. 7, 2 Dec., pp. 99–102. Lewis, D. 1970. ‘The growth of the country trade in the Straits of Malacca, 1760–1777’, JMBRAS, 43, ii, pp. 114–130. Lewis, G.E.D. 1991. Out East in the Malay Peninsula, Petaling Jaya, Selangor: Penerbit Fajar Bakti. Lim Chong-Yah. 1967. Economic Development of Modern Malaya, Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Lim Hin Fui. 1997. Orang Asli, Forest and Development, Malayan Forest Records, No. 43, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM. Lim Jit Sai, Mohamad Sabtu, Mustafa Kamal Baharuddin and Wahid Omar. 1996. ‘Soil resources in Malaysia: An overview’, in Proceedings of the CAP-SAM National Conference: ‘The State of the Malaysian Environment’, 5–9 Jan., Penang: CAP-SAM, pp. 122–149. Lim Teck Gee. 1976. Origins of a Colonial Economy: Land and Agriculture in Perak, 1874–1897, Penang: Pernerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia. —— 1977. Peasants and Their Agricultural Economy, 1874–1941, Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Linehan, W. 1972. A History of Pahang (First published 1936), MBRAS, Reprint No. 2. Ling Chia Poh, 1969. ‘Current problems in the teaching of geography in Malaysia’, in Teacher Education in New Countries, 10, ii, pp. 172–182. Little, R. 1849. ‘Diseases of the nutmeg tree’, JIA, 3, pp. 678–681. Loch, C.W. 1937. ‘Rhinoceros sondaicus: The Javan or Lesser One-horned Rhinoceros and its geographical distribution’, JMBRAS, 15, ii, pp. 130–149. Lockman, M., M. Sirin, Poh Lye Yong, Mohd Shah Wahid, Hj. Othman and Sarani Judi. 1993. ‘Distribution of bamboo and the potential development of the bamboo industry in Peninsular Malaysia’, in Wan Razali Wan Mohd and Aminuddin Mohammed (eds), National Bamboo Seminar I, 2–4 Nov. 1992: Proceedings, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM, pp. 6–19. Logan, J.R. 1847. ‘The Orang Binua of Johore’, JIA, 1, pp. 242–293. —— 1847. ‘The Biduanda Kallang of the River Pulai in Johore’, JIA, 1, pp. 299–302. —— 1848. ‘Range of the gutta taban collectors and present amount of imports into Singapore’, JIA, 2, pp. 529–533. —— 1848. ‘The probable effects on the climate of Pinang of the continued destruction of its hill jungles’, JIA, 2, pp. 534–536. —— 1847. ‘The present condition of the Indian Archipelago’, JIA, 1, pp. 1–21.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 459 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Bibliography

•

459

—— 1849. ‘Five days in Naning, with a walk to the foot of Gunong Datu in Rembau’, JIA, 3, pp. 24–41, 278–287, 402–412, 489–493. —— 1850. ‘The manners and customs of the Malays’, JIA, 4, pp. 33–35. Loh, D. 2001. ‘PWD [Public Works Department] to shift raw water intake point’, NST, 12 Jan. Loh Kok Wah and Mustafa K. Anuar. 1996. ‘The press in Malaysia in the early 1990s: Corporatization, technological innovation and the middle class’, in Muhammad Ikmal et al. (eds), Malaysia: Critical Perspectives, pp. 96–131. Lohmann, L. 1996. ‘Freedom to plant: Indonesia and Thailand in a globalizing pulp and paper industry’, in Parnwell and Bryant (eds), Environmental Change in South-East Asia, pp. 23–48. Long, E. 1928. ‘In a Malayan forest’, British Malaya, 3, ii, pp. 36–38, 45. Louis, I.N. 1996. ‘The proposed highland highway project: An environmental nightmare?’ in Proceedings of the CAP-SAM National Conference: ‘The State of the Malaysian Environment’, 5–9 Jan., Penang: CAP-SAM, pp. 509–524. Low, H. and L. Wray. 1883. ‘Gutta-producing trees’, JSBRAS, 12, pp. 207–209. Low, J. 1972 Dissertation on the Soil and Agriculture of the British Settlements of Penang or Prince of Wales Island in the Straits of Malacca, including Province Wellesley on the Malay Peninsula (First published 1836), Singapore: OUP. Lowe, P.D. 1983. ‘Values and institutions in the history of British nature conservation’, in A. Warren and F.B. Goldsmith (eds), Conservation in Perspective, London: John Wiley, pp. 329–352. Lucas, G.L. 1982. ‘The survival of species genetic diversity’, in McNeely and Miller (eds), National Parks, Conservation, and Development’, pp. 56–57. Macalister, N. 1803. Historical Memoir Relative to the Prince of Wales Island, London: J.H. Hart. Mackenzie, J. 1988. The Empire of Nature: Hunting, Conservation and British Imperialism, Manchester: Manchester University Press. —— 1978. ‘Chivalry, social Darwinism and ritualized killing: The hunting ethos in central Africa up to 1914’, in Anderson and Grove (eds), Conservation in Africa: People, Politics and Practice, pp. 41–61. Mackilligan, A.P. 1927. ‘Nipa cultivation in Malaya’, Planter, 7, vii, pp. 200–202. —— 1927. ‘Power alcohol from plantation nipah’, British Malaya, 2, iv, p. 93. Macmillan, H.F. 1991. Tropical Plants and Gardening (First published Colombo, 1910), Revised, H.S. Barlow, I. Enoch and R.A. Russell, Kuala Lumpur: Malayan Nature Society. Mahathir Mohamad, 1992. ‘Speech by the Right Honourable the Prime Minister…’, in Yap Son Kheong and Lee Su Win (eds), In Harmony with Nature: Proceedings of the International Conference on Conservation of Tropical Biodiversity, 12–16 June 1990, Kuala Lumpur: Malayan Nature Society, pp. 1–2. —— 1993. ‘Opening Address by the Honorable Prime Minister of Malaysia… at the 14th Commonwealth Conference’, in Thang et al. (eds), People, the Environment and Forestry, pp. 5–7. Mahmad Rasid Ibrahim. 1998. ‘The development towards sustainable management in the SFDs [State Forest Departments]’, in Chin Tuck Yuan, R.H. Krezdorn and Yong Teng Koon (eds), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Malaysian-German Sustainable Forest Management and Conservation Project in Peninsular Malaysia, 11–12 Feb., Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM and Forestry Department. Mahmud Mat, Dato. 1997. Tinggal Kenangan, Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Majid Cooke, F. 1994. ‘The politics of regulation: Enforcing forestry rules in Pahang’, Journal of Contemporary Asia, 24, iv, pp. 425–440. —— 1999. The Challenge of Sustainable Forests: Forest Resource Policy in Malaysia, 1970–1995, St. Leonards, NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Malay Mail.1929. ‘A little known asset’, 9 April. —— 1930. ‘Big game in Malaya’, 26 Sept. —— 1932. Editorial, ‘The National Park of Malaya’, 19 Aug. —— 1934. Editorial, ‘A priceless possession’, 4 April. —— 1934. ‘Selangor’s depleted forests’, 7 June. —— 1936. ‘The preservation of wild life’, 30 Dec. —— 1938. ‘Game in the F.M.S.: Chief Warden’s Report’, 14 Feb.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 460 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

460

—— 1938. Editorial, ‘Our forest assets’, 17 Aug. —— 1939. Editorial, ‘Sir Lewis Fermor’s Report’, 5 Sept. —— (The New Order). 1942. Editorial, ‘Are forests an asset or a liability?’ 9 Sept. Malayan Forester. 1950. Editorial, ‘T.A. Strong’, 13, p. 117. —— 1954. ‘Roll of Honor’, 17, p. 72. —— 1956. ‘Retirement: Edward John Shrubshall’, 19, pp. 2–3. —— 1967. Editorial, ‘The evolution of the Malaysian Timber Export Industry Board’, 30, iii, pp. 162–163. —— 1969. Editorial, ‘The International Biological Programme’, 22, iv, pp. 354–355. Malayan Medical Association. 1982. Editorial, ‘A plea for the preservation of Taman Negara’, Berita MMA, June. Malayan Miscellanies, 1820/2, Benkulen: Sumatran Mission Press, 2 vols. Malayan Naturalist.1974. ‘Report of the Educational Committee’, 1, i, p. 7. —— 1975. Editorial, ‘Protection of the environment’, 1, iii, pp 1–2. —— 1977. Editorial, [The Endau-Rompin National Park campaign], 3, iv. —— 1978. Editorial, [The Endau-Rompin issue], 4, ii. —— 1979. Editorial, [Timber crisis], March-June 1979 (unnumbered), p.1. —— 1980, ‘Report of the 33rd Annual General Meeting [of the Malayan Nature Society]’, 34, i and ii, pp. 23–29. —— 1989. ‘Minutes of the 41st Annual General Meeting [of the Malayan Nature Society]’, 42, iv, pp. 8–12. Malayan Nature Journal. 1962. ‘Report of the Fifteenth Annual General Meeting [of the Malayan Nature Society]’, 16, i & ii, pp. 210–219. —— 1962.‘Tenth Pacific Science Congress’, 16 , iii, pp. 145–149. —— 1970. Editorial, ‘Malaysia must act to save the Sumatran rhino’, 24, pp. 1–2. —— 1970/71. ‘Report of the 22nd Annual General Meeting, 1968–69 [of the Malayan Nature Society]’, 24, pp. 34–45. —— 1972. Editorial, ‘Floods 1971’, 25, pp. 1–3. —— 1974. ‘A Blue Print for Conservation in Peninsular Malaysia’, 27, i, pp. 1–19. —— 1974. ‘Report of the 25th Annual General Meeting [of the Malayan Nature Society], 1971–2’, 27, pp. 69–78. Malayan Nature Society, 1988. Endau-Rompin: A Malaysian Heritage, Kuala Lumpur. Malayan Nature Society Members (58). 1986. ‘Can development be considered elsewhere?’ Star, 11 Feb. Manokaran, N. 1998. ‘Effect, 34 years later, of selective logging in the lowland dipterocarp forest at Pasoh, Peninsular Malaysia, and implications on present-day logging in the hill forests’, in Lee et al. (eds), Conservation, Management and Development of Forest Resources, pp. 41–60. Marsden, W. 1966. A History of Sumatra (First published 1783; 3rd edition, London, 1811), Reprinted, Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Marsh, C.W. and W.L. Wilson. 1981. A Survey of Primates in Peninsular Malaysian Forests, Bangi, Selangor: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia/University of Cambridge, UK. Marsh, G.P. 1965. Man and Nature, or Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action (First published 1864, New York), D. Lowenthal (ed.), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Marshall, C. 1952. ‘Land use morality’, Malayan Forester, 15, ii, 88–92. —— 1952.‘Land use and abuse in Malaya’, Malayan Forester, 15, ii, pp. 132–136. —— 1953. ‘Soil control by self control’, Malayan Forester, 16, i, pp. 12–18. —— 1953. ‘Sustained yield and the national conscience’. Paper presented at the 1952 (Singapore) Conference of the United Nations FAO Forestry Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Malayan Forester, 16, ii, pp. 94–98. —— 1957. ‘The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources’, Malayan Forester, 20, pp. 80–82. Marshall, J.C.K. 1934. ‘The Malayan damar penak business in Negeri Sembilan’, Malayan Forester, 3, iv, pp. 188–191.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 461 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Bibliography

•

461

Maxwell, G. 1927. ‘Big game and planters’, British Malaya, 2, viii, pp. 197–201. —— 1928. ‘River control in the F.M.S.’, British Malaya, 3, iii, pp. 77–79. —— 1954. ‘The early days of Fraser’s Hill’, Malayan Forester, 17, pp. 73–79. —— 1960. In Malay Forests (First published 1907, London), Singapore: Eastern Universities Press. Maxwell, W.E. 1884. ‘The law and customs of the Malays with reference to the tenure of land’, JSBRAS, 13, pp. 75–220. —— 1881. ‘Folklore of the Malays’, JSBRAS, 7, pp. 11–29. —— 1891–92. ‘The Malay Peninsula: Its resources and prospects’, in Proceedings of the Royal Colonial Institute, London: The Institute. McCarthy, J.F. 2002. ‘Power and interest on Sumatra’s rainforest frontier: Clientelist coalitions, illegal logging and conservation in the Alas Valley’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 33, i, pp. 77–106. McCoy, A.M. 1980. Southeast Asia under Japanese Occupation, Monographs, No. 22, New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asia Studies. McNair, F. 1878. Perak and the Malays: Sarong and Kris, London: Tinsley Brothers. McNaughton, E.J. 1936. ‘Plantation rubber in Malaya’, British Malaya, 11, iv, pp. 89–93. McNeely, J.A.1994. ‘Lessons from the past: Forests and biodiversity’, Biodiversity and Conservation, 3, pp. 3–20. McNeely, J.A. and K.R. Miller (eds), 1984. National Parks, Conservation, and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society, Proceedings of the World Congress on National Parks, Bali, Indonesia, 11–22 Oct. 1982 (Organized by the Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, IUCN), Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. McNeill, J.R. 2000. Something New Under the Sun: An Environmental History of the TwentiethCentury World, New York: W.W. Norton. Mead, J.P. 1934. ‘Forestry in British Malaya’, Indian Forester, 60, pp. 25–30. Means, G.P. 1976. Malaysian Politics, London: Hodder and Stoughton. Means, P.N. 1981. And the Seed Grew, Kuala Lumpur: Council of Missions, Methodist Church of Malaya. Medway, Lord (see also Cranbrook). 1964. ‘The Fauna’, in Wang Gungwu (ed.), Malaysia , pp. 55–65. —— 1965. ‘Game statistics for Malaya: 1960–63’, Malayan Nature Journal, 19, pp. 223–234. —— 1971. ‘Importance of Taman Negara in the conservation of mammals’, in Ho et al. (eds), National Parks of Malaysia, pp. 212–224. —— 1983. The Wild Mammals of Malaya and Singapore, (Second edition 1979), Revised, Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Meng Yew Choong and S.S. Yoga. 1999. ‘Slip sliding away’, Star, 28 Dec. Menon, K.D. 1969. ‘Malaysian national programme for IBP: A review of highlights’, Malayan Forester, 32, iv, pp. 395–400. Menon, K.P.V. 1976. History and Development of Forestry and Forest Industries in Malaysia: A Bibliography, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM. Miller, D. P. and P.H. Reill (eds), 1996. Visions of Empire: Voyages, Botany and Representations of Nature, Cambridge: CUP. Miller, F.R. and K.L. Adam (eds), 1992. Wise Management of Tropical Forests: Proceedings of the Oxford Conference on Tropical Forests, 30 March–1 April, Oxford: Oxford Forestry Institute. Miller, H. 1970. Menace in Malaya (First published 1954), London: George G. Harrap. Miller, K. 1984.‘The Bali Action Plan: A framework for the future of protected Areas’, in McNeely and Miller (eds), National Parks, Conservation and Development, pp. 756–764. Milner, A.C. 1991. ‘Inventing politics: The case of Malaysia’, Past and Present, 132, pp. 104–129. Milton, O.M.B. 1962. ‘Some problems in wild life conservation in S.E. Asia’, Malayan Forester, 25, i, pp. 36–39. —— 1963. Field Notes on Wildlife Conservation in West Malaysia, American Committee for International Wildlife Protection, Washington, D.C., Special Publication 16. Mitchell, B.A. 1957. ‘A note on land erosion in the Cameron Highlands’, Abstracted from Hydroelectric Technical Memorandum No. 3 of the Central Electricity Board, ‘River flow in the Cameron Highlands’, Malayan Forester, 20, pp. 30–32. Mitchell, E. 1949. ‘Rubber estate with “Private Army”’,The Crown Colonist, London, pp. 449–450

KWells_book_4.fm Page 462 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

462

Mohamad Said. 1982. Memoirs of a Menteri Besar: Early Days, Singapore: Heinemann Asia. Mohan V.C. and Chee Yoke Ling. 1987. ‘The Asia-Pacific People’s Environment Network (APPEN) as a people’s movement for social change’, in SAM, Proceedings of the Conference on ‘Forest Resources Crisis in the Third World’, pp. 456–464. Mohd Abdullah. 1977. ‘Maka runtuhlah satu lagi keagungan kita’, Utusan Malaysia, 24 Oct. —— 1977. ‘Hutan kita hapus menjelang 1990’, Utusan Malaysia, 25 Oct. Mohd Azmi M.I. and H. Norini. 2001. ‘Supply and demand of medicinal plants: A preliminary study in the northern states of Peninsular Malaysia’, in Chang Yu Shyun, Masura Mohtar, V. Subramaniam and Zainal Abu Samad (eds), Towards Bridging Science and the Herbal Industry, Proceedings of the Seminar on Medicinal Aromatic Plants, 12–13 Sept. 2000, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM, pp. 16–25. Mohd Basri Hamzah, Sheikh Ali Abod and Kamis Awang. 1983. ‘Urban forestry and the amelioration of urban living’, in Wan Sabri Wan Mansor, Rusli Mohd, Kamis Awang, Mohd Basri Hamzah and Mohd Zin Jusoh (eds), Outdoor recreation in Malaysia, Proceedings of a Seminar, 26–28 Sept., Serdang, Selangor: Universiti Pertanian Malaysia, pp. 351–357. Mohd Darus Mahmud. 1978. ‘Forest resources of Peninsular Malaysia’, Malayan Forester, 41, ii, pp. 82–93. —— 1979 ‘Forest resource base: Policy and legislation of Peninsular Malaysia’, Malayan Forester, 42, iv, pp. 328–347. Mohd Idris, S.M. 1986. ‘Road projects may deter tourists’, Star, 29 Jan. —— 1987. ‘Opening Address’, in SAM, Proceedings of the Conference on ‘Forest Resources Crisis in the Third World’, pp. 2–5. Mohd Khan Momin Khan. 1965. ‘Problems with the elephant, and where it is in danger in the state of Perak’, MNJ, 19, pp. 138–140. —— 1967. ‘Movements of a herd of elephants in the upper Perak area’, MNJ, 20, pp. 18–23. —— 1967. ‘Population trends of deer in Perak as seen from licence reports’, MNJ, 20, pp. 24–26. —— 1971. ‘The distribution of large animals in Taman Negara’, in Ho et al. (eds), National Parks of Malaysia, pp. 125–131. —— 1977. ‘On the population and distribution of the Malayan elephant’, MNJ, 30, pp. 1–13. —— 1985. ‘Population and distribution of the Malayan elephant, Elephas maximus, in Peninsular Malaysia’, Journal of Wild Life and Parks, 4, pp. 1–16. —— 1988. ‘Animal conservation strategies’, in Cranbrook (ed.), Key Environments: Malaysia, pp. 251–272. —— (compiler). 1989. Asian Rhinos: An Action Plan for their Conservation, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Mohd Nor Jamalul Lail. 2000. ‘Mohamed Haniff (1872–1930) of the Penang Botanic Gardens: A biographical tribute to a pioneer botanist’, Folia Malaysiana, 2, pp. 27–32. Mohd Osman, Mansor Puteh and Aminuddin Mohamad. 1995. ‘Potential crops from the wild’, in Prospects in Biodiversity Prospecting, Proceedings of a Workshop, 9–10 Nov. 1994, Kuala Lumpur: Genetics Society of Malaysia and University Kebangsaan Malaysia. Mohd Parid Mamat and Lim Hin Fui. 2001. ‘The importance of gaharu harvesting to household economy’, Poster presented at a seminar: ‘Medicinal and Aromatic Plants’, 24–25 July, Abstract, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM, p. 42. Mohd Taib Osman. 1985. ‘The traditional Malay socio-political world-view’, in Mohd Taib Osman (ed.), Malaysian World-Views, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 46–75. Mok, S.T. 1977. ‘Forest management strategies for sustained maximum socio-economic benefits’, Malayan Forester, 40, i, pp. 14–26. Morgan, R.P.C. 1974. ‘Estimating regional variations in soil erosion hazard in Peninsular Malaysia’, MNJ, 28, ii pp. 92–104. Morley, R.J. and J.R. Flenley. 1987. ‘Late Cainozoic vagetational and environmental changes in the Malay Archipelago’, in T.C. Whitmore (ed.), Biogeographical Evolution of the Malay Archipelago, Oxford: Clarendon, pp. 50–59. Muhammad Ikmal Said and Zahid Emby (eds). 1996. Malaysia: Critical Perspectives, Essays in Honour of Syed Husin Ali, Petaling Jaya, Selangor: Malaysian Social Science Association. Muhammad Jabil. 1983. ‘Problems and prospects in tropical rainforest management for sustained yield’, Malayan Forester, 46, iv, pp. 398–408.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 463 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Bibliography

•

463

—— 1984. ‘Malaysia’s forestry policies: Sustained production of tropical hardwood’. Paper presented at the 75th Jubilee of the Netherlands Timber Board, Sept., The Netherlands: Nederlandse Houtbond, pp. 4–15. Munro, G.R.1975. ‘The Malaysian balance of payments to 1980’, Pt. 1, in D. Lim (ed.), Readings on Malaysian Economic Development, Kuala Lumpur: OUP, pp. 47–65. Myers, N. 1979. The Sinking Ark: A New Look at the Problem of Disappearing Species, Oxford: Pergamon Press. —— 1983. ‘Conservation of rain forests for scientific research, for wildlife conservation, and for recreation and tourism’, in Golley (ed.), Tropical Rain Forest Ecosystems, pp. 325–334. —— 1984. The Primary Source: Tropical Forests and Our Future, New York: W.W. Norton. —— 1988. ‘Tropical deforestation and climatic change’, Environmental Conservation, 15, iv, pp. 293–298. Nadchatram, M. 1971. ‘Templer Park’, MNJ, 24, pp. 139–147. Nagata, Shuichi. 1997. ‘The origin of an Orang Asli reserve in Kedah’, in R.L.W. Winzeler (ed.), Indigenous Peoples and the State: Politics, Land, and Ethnicity in the Malayan Peninsula and Borneo, Monograph 46, New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asia Studies, pp. 84–97. Naoki, Soda. 2001. ‘The Malay world in textbooks: The translation of colonial knowledge in British Malaya’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 39, ii, pp.188–234. Narayayanaswami, V. 1931. ‘Provenance of early Malayan plant collectors’, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, n.s., 27, pp. 327–332. Nash, R.F. 1989. The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics, Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. Neumann, R. 1995. ‘Ways of seeing Africa: Colonial recasting of African society and landscape in Serengeti National Park’, Ecumene, 2, ii, pp. 149–169. New Straits Times. 1977. Editorial. ‘The real issue’, 29 Aug. —— 1994. Editorial, ‘Preservation for posterity’, 22 April. Newbold, T. J. 1968. ‘Johore and its former dependencies of Jompol Gominchi’, in J.H. Moor, Notices of the Indian Archipelago (First published 1837, Singapore), London: Frank Cass. —— 1971. Political and Statistical Account of the British Settlements in the Straits of Malacca (First published 1839, London), Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 2 Vols. Ng, F.S.P. (ed.). 1979–1989. Tree Flora of Malaya, vols 3 and 4, Kuala Lumpur: Longmans. —— 1983. ‘Ecological principles of tropical lowland rain forest conservation’, in S.L. Sutton, T.C. Whitmore and A.C. Chadwick (eds), Tropical Rain Forest: Ecology and Management. Special Publication No. 2 of the British Ecological Society, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 359–375. —— 1988. ‘Forest tree biology’, in Cranbrook (ed.), Key Environments: Malaysia, pp. 102–125. —— 1989. ‘Conservation of biodiversity in national parks and protected areas’, in Proceedings of the National Conference on National Parks and Protected Areas, 13–15 Nov., Kuala Lumpur: Department of Wild Life and National Parks. —— 1990. ‘Taman Negara as a centre of endemicity for trees’, in Journal of Wildlife and Parks, 10, A Special Issue to Commemorate the Golden Jubilee of Taman Negara, 1939–1989, pp. 52–53. Ngau, H., T. Jalong Apoui and Chee Yoke Ling. 1987. ‘Malaysian timber: Exploitation for whom?’, in SAM, Proceedings of the Conference on ‘Forest Resources Crisis in the Third World’, pp. 40–53. Nicholas, C. 1996.‘The Orang Asli of Peninsular Malaysia’, in C. Nicholas and R. Singh, Indigenous Peoples of Asia: Many People, One Struggle, Bangkok: Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact, pp. 155–176. Nicholls, N. 1993. ‘ENSO, drought and flooding rain in South-East Asia’, in H. Brookfield and Y. Byron (eds), South-East Asia’s Environmental Future: The Search for Sustainability, Tokyo: United Nations University Press, pp. 154–175. Nicholson, M. 1972. The Environmental Revolution: A Guide to the New Masters of the World, London: Hamondsworth. —— 1987. The New Environmental Age, Cambridge: CUP. Nonini, D.M. 1992. British Colonial Rule and the Resistance of the Malay Peasantry, 1900–1957, Monograph 38, New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asia Studies. Noone, H.D. 1936. ‘Report on the settlements and welfare of the Ple-Temiar Senoi of the PerakKelantan watershed’, JFMSM, 19, i.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 464 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

464

Noone, R. 1972. Rape of the Dream People, London: Hutchinson. Nordin, M. and Hasnah Samian. 1981. ‘The Primate trade in Malaysia’, in Proceedings of the Symposium on the Biology of Peninsular Malaysian Primates, Journal of Malaysian Applied Biology. Special Issue, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia/Universiti Pertanian Malaysia/University of Cambridge, UK, pp. 183–196. Ohta, Masahiro. 1987. ‘UNEP’s activities on tropical forest in Asia and the Pacific’, in SAM, Proceedings of the Conference on ‘Forest Resources Crisis in the Third World’, pp. 25–28. Oliphant, J. N. 1931. ‘Forest transport problems in Malaya’, Malayan Forester, 1, i, pp. 12–15. —— 1932. ‘Artificial v. natural regeneration’, Malayan Forester, 1, v, pp. 186–192. —— 1932. ‘State forests of the Empire’, Empire Forestry Journal, 11, pp. 239–242. —— 1935. ‘Save the vegetation’, Malayan Forester, 4, pp. 3–7. Oliphant, L. 1859. Narrative of the Earl of Elgin’s Mission to China and Japan in the years 1857, 1858 and 1859, New York: Augustus M. Kelly, 2 vols. Olivier, R. 1978. ‘Distribution and status of the Asian elephant’, Oryx, 14, iv, pp. 379–424. —— 1978. ‘Conservation of the Asian elephant’, Environmental Conservation, 5, i, p. 146. —— 1980. ‘Reconciling elephant conservation and development in Asia: Ecological basis and possible approaches’, in J.I. Furtado(ed.), Tropical Ecology and Development, Proceedings of the Vth International Symposium of Tropical Ecology, 16–21 April 1979, Kuala Lumpur: International Society for Tropical Ecology, pp. 315–327. Ong Kee Hui. 1973. ‘Closing Address’, in Soepadmo and Singh (eds), Proceedings of the Symposium on Biological Resources and National Development, pp. 175–177. Ooi Jin Bee. 1959. Rural development in tropical areas with special reference to Malaya, Journal of Tropical Geography, No. 12. —— 1976. Peninsular Malaysia. London: Longmans. Oppenheimer, S. 1998. Eden in the East: The Drowned Continent of Southeast Asia, Phoenix: Guernsey, C. I. Ormsby-Gore, W.G.1983. ‘Tropical agriculture in Malaya, Ceylon and Java’, in P. Kratoska (ed.), Honorable Intentions: Talks on the British Empire in South-East Asia delivered at the Royal Colonial Institute, 1874–1928, Singapore: Oxford University Press, pp. 434–443. Osako, M.M. 1983. ‘Forest preservation in Tokugawa Japan’, in R.P. Tucker and J.F. Richards (eds), Global Deforestation and the Nineteenth-Century World Economy, Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, pp. 129–145. Oxley, T. 1847. ‘Gutta-percha’, JIA, 1, pp. 22–29. —— 1848. ‘Some account of nutmeg and its cultivation’, JIA, 2, pp. 641–660. —— 1849. ‘The zoology of Singapore’, JIA, 3, pp. 594–597. —— 1850. ‘A trip to the Moar’, JIA, 4, pp. 348–358. —— 1850. ‘The botany of Singapore’, JIA, 4, pp. 436–440. Page, H.J. 1938. ‘The role of cover-plants in rubber growing’, Planter, Supplement to vol. 19, pp.1–3. Pang Hin Yue. 1993. ‘Timber concessions may be restricted’, NST, 26 March. —— 1995. ‘Forests still not given priority’, NST, 19 Dec. —— 1996. ‘Meeting the timber deadline’, NST, 21 May. Park, C.C. 1992. Tropical Rainforests, London: Routledge. Parnwell, M.J.G. and R.L. Bryant (eds). 1996. Environmental Change in South-East Asia: People, Politics and Sustainable Development, London: Routledge. Pearce, F. 1990. ‘This is the way the world ends’, BBC Wildlife, June, reproduced in WRFM, The Endangered Forests, vol. 1, pp. 73–76. —— 1991. Green Warriors: The People and the Politics Behind the Environmental Revolution, London: Bodley Head. Pelink, E. 1971. ‘What to do and where to go in Taman Negara’, in Ho et al. (eds), National Parks of Malaysia, pp. 115–117. Peluso, N.L. 1991. ‘The history of state forest management’, Journal of Forest History, 35, pp. 65–73. —— 1992. Rich Forests, Poor People: Resource Control and Resistance in Java, Berkeley: University of California Press. Pelzer, K. 1945. Pioneer Settlement in the Asiatic Tropics: Studies in Land Utilization and Agricultural Colonization in Southeast Asia, New York: American Geographical Society.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 465 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Bibliography

•

465

—— 1978. ‘Swidden cultivation in Southeast Asia: Historical, ecological and economic perspectives’, in Kunstadter et al. (ed.), Farmers in the Forest, pp. 271–286. —— 1978. Planter and Peasant, Colonial Policy and the Agrarian Struggle in East Sumatra, 1863– 1947, KITLV, Verhandelingen, 84, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Pieters, D. 1936. ‘Something about elephants in Sumatra’, in Nature Protection in the Netherlands Indies, Compiled by the Section on Nature Protection, Government Botanic Gardens, Buitenzorg, Department of Economic Affairs, Batavia. Pinchot, G. 1937, ‘How conservation began in the U.S.’, Agricultural History, 2, pp. 255–265. Plotkin, M.J. 1991. ‘Traditional knowledge of medicinal plants: The search for new jungle medicines’, in O. Akerele, V. Heywood and H. Synge (eds), The Conservation of Medicinal Plants, Proceedings of an International Conference, 21–27 March 1988 at Chiang Mai, Thailand. Cambridge: CUP, pp. 53–63. Poffenberger, M. (ed.). 1990. Keepers of the Forest: Land Management Alternatives in Southeast Asia, Manila: Ateneo de Manila University Press. Poore, M. E. D.1964. ‘Vegetation and flora’, in Wang Gungwu (ed.), Malaysia, pp. 44–54. —— 1976. Ecological Guidelines for Development in Tropical Rain Forests, Morges, Switzerland, IUCN. —— 1988. ‘Tropical deforestation and climatic change’, Environmental Conservation, 15, iv, pp. 293–298. Poore, M.E.D., P.F. Burgess, J. R. Palmer, S. Rietbergen and T.J. Synnott. 1989. No Timber Without Trees: Sustainability in the Tropical Forest, London: Earthscan. Potter, L.M. 1993. ‘Banjarese in and beyond Hulu Sungai, South Kalimantan: A study of cultural independence, economic opportunity and mobility’, in J. T. Lindblad (ed.), New Economic Challenges in the Modern Economic History of Indonesia, Leiden: Programme of Indonesian Studies, pp. 264–298. —— 1997. ‘A forest product out of control: Gutta-percha in Indonesia and the wider Malay world’, in Boomgaard et al. (eds), Paper Landscapes, pp. 281–308. Proceedings of the Agricultural Society Established in Sumatra, 1820. 1821. Benkulen: Sumatran Mission Press, vol. I (only one volume was published). Putz, F.E. 1978. A Survey of Virgin Jungle Reserves in Peninsular Malaysia, Research Pamphlet No. 73, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM. Purseglove, J.W. 1956. The Ridley Centenary: 10 December 1955, Singapore: The Botanic Gardens. Pyenson, L. 1989. Empire of Reason: Exact Sciences in Indonesia, 1840–1940, Leiden: E.J. Brill. Radkau, J. 1997. ‘The wordy worship of nature and the tacit feeling for nature in the history of German forestry’, in Teich et al. (eds), Nature and Society in Historical Context, pp. 228–239. Raffles, Lady Sophia. 1991. Memoir of the Life and Public Services of Sir Stamford Raffles… (First published 1830, London), (intro.) J. Bastin, Singapore: OUP. Raffles, T.S. 1965. The History of Java (First published 1811, London), Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Rajan, Ravi. [n.p.]. ‘Science, nature and governing economy: Empire forestry and its colonization of Britain’. Paper presented at the International Conference on Forest and Environmental History of the British Empire and Commonwealth, 19–21 March 2003, University of Sussex, UK. Ramayah, J. 1993. ‘War on illegal logging: Forestry department told to work with police and army’, NST, 8 Jan. Rambo, A. T. 1979. ‘Primitive man’s impact on genetic resources of the Malaysian tropical rain forest’, Malaysian Applied Biology, 8 , i, pp. 59–65. —— 1979. ‘Human ecology of the Orang Asli: A review of research on the environmental relations of the aborigines of Peninsular Malaysia’, JFMSM, 24, pp. 41–71. —— 1982, ‘Orang Asli adaptive strategies: Implications for Malaysian natural resource development planning’, in C. MacAndrews and Chia Lin Sien (eds), Too Rapid Rural Development: Perceptions and Perspectives from Southeast Asia, Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, pp. 251– 299. Rathborne, A. 1984 Camping and Tramping in Malaya: Fifteen Years’ Pioneering in the Native States of the Malay Peninsula (First published 1898, London), Singapore: OUP. Richards, P.W. 1952. The Tropical Rain Forest: An Ecological Study, Cambridge: CUP.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 466 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

466

—— 1964. ‘What the tropics can contribute to ecology’, Journal of Animal Ecology, 33, pp. 1–11. Ridley, H.N. 1922. The Flora of the Malay Peninsula. London: L. Reeve. Robert, L.R. (see also Shaharil Talib). 1972. ‘The Duff Syndicate in Kelantan’, JMBRAS, 45, i pp. 81–110. Robertson, A. F. 1984. People and the State: An Anthropology of Planned Development, Cambridge: CUP. Robinson, H.C. 1927. The Birds of the Malay Peninsula, vol. 1, London: H.F. and G. Witherby. Robinson, H.C. and C.B. Kloss. 1915. ‘Additional notes on the Semang Paya of Ijok, Selama, Perak’, JFMSM, 5, iv, pp. 187–213. Robinson, R.L. 1922. ‘Forestry in the Empire’, Empire Forestry, 1, pp. 11–34. Roe, E.J. 1896. ‘Sakai tribes in Selangor’, Selangor Journal, V, No. 25, 20 Aug., pp. 413–414. Roff, W. (selected and intro.). 1966. Stories by Sir Hugh Clifford, Kuala Lumpur: OUP. —— 1967. The Origins of Malay Nationalism, Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press. —— (selected and intro.). 1967. Stories and Sketches by Sir Frank Swettenham, Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Rosli Zakaria and Sarban Singh. 1996. ‘RM 1.2 billion needed for sustainable forests’, NST, 24 Sept. Ross, M. 2001. Timber Booms and Institutional Breakdown in Southeast Asia, Cambridge: CUP. Rowley, A. 1977. ‘Forests: Save or squander?’ Far Eastern Economic Review, 2 Dec. Rubeli, K. 1976. ‘The Tembeling hydro-electric project from the Taman Negara viewpoint’, MNJ, 29, iv, pp. 307–314. Rudner, M. 1979. ‘Agricultural policy and peasant social transformation in late colonial Malaya’, in J.C. Jackson and M. Rudner (eds), Issues in Malaysian Development, Australian Association of Asian Studies Publication Series, Singapore: Heinemann, pp. 7–68. Russell, W.M.S. 1972. ‘The man who invented conservation’, Ecologist, 2, ii, pp. 14–55. Sabaratnam, S. 1999. ‘Unleashing a flood of frustration’, NST, 16 March. Sadka, E. (ed.). 1954. ‘The journal of Sir Hugh Low, Perak, 1877’, JMBRAS, 27, iv. —— 1968. The Protected Malay States, 1874 –1895, Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press. Sahir Othman. 1986. ‘Elephant population, distribution and growth in the state of Johor’, Journal of Wild Life and Parks, 5, pp. 93–102. Saldanha, Indra Munshi. 1996. ‘Colonialism and professionalism: A German forester in India’, Environment and History, 2, pp. 195–219. Salleh, M.N. and J. Baharudin. 1985. ‘Silvicultural practices in Peninsular Malaysia’, in The Future of Tropical Rain Forests in South-East Asia, Commission on Ecology Papers, IUCN, Environmentalist, 5, Supplement No. 10, pp. 85–90. Salleh Mohd Nor. 1982. ‘Forestry in Peninsular Malaysia and its role in environmental conservation’, in Development and the Environmental Crisis: A Malaysian Case, Proceedings of a Symposium, 16-20 Sept. 1978, Penang: CAP, pp. 75–81. —— 1988. ‘Forest Management’, in Cranbrook (ed.), Key Environments: Malaysia, pp. 126–137. Salleh Mohd Nor and N. Manokaran. 1993. ‘Mechanism for prioritisation and management of tropical forest for conservation: Conflict or harmony?’, in Thang et al. (eds), People, the Environment and Forestry, pp. 255–261. SAM (Sahabat Alam Malaysia/Friends of the Earth, Malaysia). 1987. Proceedings of the Conference on ‘Forest Resources Crisis in the Third World’, 6–8 Sept. 1986, Penang. Sands, W.N. 1936. ‘Exploring the Cameron Highlands’, Pt 1, British Malaya, 10, ix , pp. 219–222. Sanson, V. 1992. Gardens and Parks of Singapore, Singapore: OUP. Sariffuddin, Tengku, Khairun Nazirah, Kamarulzaman Salleh and Pang Hin Yue. 1995.‘Forestry: Support of states required’, NST, 10 Jan. Sato, J. 2003. ‘Public lands for the people: The institutional basis for community forestry in Thailand’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 34, ii, pp. 329–346. Savage, V. 1984. Western Impressions of Nature and Landscape in Southeast Asia, Singapore: Singapore University Press. Saw, L.G. and Raja Barizan Sulaiman (compiled). 1991. Directory of Plant Resources in Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM. Sayer, J.A. 1992. ‘Address’, as Chairman of the Plenary Session of the Conference, in F.R. Miller and K.L. Adam, Wise Management of Tropical Forests , Proceedings of the Oxford Conference on Tropical Forests, 30 March–1 April, Oxford: Oxford Forestry Institute, pp. viii–ix.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 467 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Bibliography

•

467

Schafer, E.H. 1977. ‘Rosewood, dragon’s blood and lac’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 2, pp. 129–135. Schama, S. 1995. Landscape and Memory, New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Schebesta, P. 1973. Among the Forest Dwarfs of Malaya (First published 1928, London), (intro.) G. Benjamin, Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Schout, van der, W.E.M. 1990. ‘Aborigines in Taman Negara: The impact of a [hunter-gatherer] community on a lowland rainforest ecosystem’, Journal of Wildlife and Parks, 10. Special Issue to Commemorate the Golden Jubilee of Taman Negara, 1939–1989, pp. 172–183. Scott, J. 1967. ‘Everyday forms of resistance’, in F. D. Colburn (ed.), Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance, New York: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 3–33. —— 1985. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday forms of Peasant Resistance, New Haven: Yale University Press. Scott, M. 1989. ‘The disappearing forests’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 12 Jan., pp. 34–38. —— 1989. ‘Unequal to the task’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 12 Jan. p. 38. Scott, W.D. 1896. ‘Kuala Selangor’, Selangor Journal, V, No. 25, 6 Aug., pp. 392, 396–397. Scrivenor, J.B. 1931. ‘Recollections of Cameron’s Highlands and Fraser’s Hill’, JMBRAS, 9, i , pp. 1–15. Secrett, C. 1987. ‘Friends of the Earth UK and the hardwood campaign’, in SAM, Proceedings of the Conference on ‘Forest Resources Crisis in the Third World’, pp. 348–356. —— 1987. ‘How transnational corporations and government control exploit 3rd world resources’, in SAM, Proceedings of the Conference on ‘Forest Resources Crisis in the Third World’, pp. 233–249. Seda, M. 1993. ‘Global environmental concerns and priorities: Implications for ASEAN’, in M. Seda (ed.), Environmental Management in ASEAN: Perspectives on Critical Regional Issues, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 2–15. Sedjo, R. A. 1996. ‘Local timber production and global trade: The environmental implications of forestry trade’, in Adamowicz et al. (eds), Forestry, Economics and the Environment, pp. 49–67. Seeland, K. 1997. ‘Indigenous knowledge of trees and forests in non-European societies’, in K. Seeland (ed.), Nature is Culture: Indigenous Knowledge and Socio-Cultural Aspects of Trees and Forests in Non-European Cultures, London: Intermediate Technology Publications, pp. 101–112. Senftleben, W. 1978. Background to Agricultural Land Policy in Malaysia, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Shafruddin, B.H. 1987. The Federal Factor in the Government and Politics of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore: OUP. Shaharil Talib (see also L.R. Robert). 1983. ‘Voices from the Kelantan desa, 1900–1940’, Modern Asian Studies, 17, ii, pp. 177–195. —— 1984. After its Own Image: The Terengganu Experience, 1881–1941, Singapore: OUP. —— 1990. ‘The port and polity of Terengganu during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries: Realizing its potential’, in Kathirithamby-Wells and Villiers (eds), Port and Polity: Rise and Demise, pp. 213–230. Shaharuddin Maaruf. 1988. Malay Ideas on Development: From Feudal Lord to Capitalist, Singapore: Times Books International. Shaharuddin Mohamad Ismail, Mohd Basri Hamzah and Samsudin Salleh. 1992. ‘An evaluation of a 19-year-old taungya planting in Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus’, Malayan Forester, 55, i, pp. 1–12. Shahnon Ahmad. 1972. No Harvest but a Thorn [Ranjau Sepanjang Jalan] (trans. and intro.) Adibah Amin, Kuala Lumpur: OUP. —— 1992. Kesasterawanan: Kepolitikan, Kealaman, Kedirian, Kemanusiaan [Literary Writers: Politics, Environment, Self-Reliance and Humanity], Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Shaik Mohd Noor Alam S.M. Hussain. 1983. ‘Uniform forest laws – Whose dilemma?’, Malayan Forester, 46, iii, pp. 387–392. Sham Sani. 1993. Environment and Development in Malaysia: Changing Concerns and Approaches, Kuala Lumpur: ISIS, Centre for Environmental Studies. Shamsul Akmar. 1991. ‘Crackdown uncovers more illegal logging’, New Sunday Times, 28 July. —— 1993. ‘PAS: Illegal logging due to unwanted interference’, NST, 25 Aug.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 468 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

468

Shamsul Bahrin, Tunku. 1967. ‘The pattern of Indonesian migration and settlement in Malaya’, Asian Studies, 5, ii , pp. 233–257. —— 1988. ‘Land settlement in Malaysia: A case study of the Federal Land Development Authority Projects’, in A.S. Oberoi (ed.), Land Settlement Policies and Population Redistribution in Developing Countries, New York: Praeger, pp. 89–119. Sharom Ahmad. 1984. Tradition and Change in a Malay State: A Study of the Economic and Political Development of Kedah, 1878–1923, Monograph 12, Kuala Lumpur: MBRAS. Sharp, I. 1984. ‘A world first for Malaysia’, NST, 11 March. Sheail, J. 1987. Seventy-five Years in Ecology: The British Ecological Society, Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. Shebbeare, E.O. 1946. ‘Malayan National Park’, JSPFE, 53, pp. 41–45. Sheppard, Mubin. 1969. ‘Traditional Malay house forms in Trengganu and Kelantan’, JMBRAS, 42, ii, pp. 1–9. —— 1979. Taman Budiman: Memoirs of an Unorthodox Civil Servant, Kuala Lumpur: Heinemann Educational Books. Shinya, Sugiama. 1994. ‘Introduction’, in Sugiama Shinya and M. Guerrero (eds), International Commercial Rivalry in Southeast Asia in the Interwar Period, Monograph 39, New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asia Studies, pp. 1–7. Short, A. 1975. The Communist Insurrection in Malaya, 1948–60, London: Muller. Short, D.E. and J. Jackson. 1971. ‘The origins of an irrigation policy in Malaya: Review of developments prior to the establishment of the Drainage and Irrigation Department’, JMBRAS, 44, i , pp. 78–103. Showers, K.B. [n.p.]. ‘Origins of soil conservation in British Africa, Pt I: Southern Africa through the 1920s’. Paper presented at the International Conference on Forest and Environmental History of the British Empire and Commonwealth, 19–21 March 2003, University of Sussex, UK. Shrubshall, E.J. 1952. ‘The Sixth Commonwealth Forestry Conference, Canada, 1952’, Malayan Forester, 16, p. 5. —— 1959. Some aspects of forest policy in the Federation of Malaya, Research Pamphlet, No. 25, Kuala Lumpur: Forest Department. Simandjuntak, B. 1969. Malayan Federalism, 1945–1963: A Study of Federal Problems in a Plural Society, Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Sivaramakrishnan. K. 1999. Modern Forests: Statemaking and Environmental Change in Colonial Eastern India, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Skeat, W.W.1897. ‘Sakai Tribes in Selangor: Kuala Langat District’, Selangor Journal, V, No. 20, 11 June, pp. 325–330; No. 22, 9 July, pp. 361–365; No. 23, 23 July pp. 378–382; No. 24, 6 Aug., pp. 392–398; No. 25, 20 Aug., pp. 413–444; No. 26, 3 Sept., pp. 430–431. —— 1953. ‘Reminiscences of the Cambridge Expedition to the North-Eastern Malay States, 1899–1900’, JMBRAS, 26, iv, pp. 9–147. —— 1967. Malay Magic: An Introduction to the Folklore and Popular Religion of the Malay Peninsula, (Preface) C.O. Blagden (First published London, 1900), New York: Dover Publications. Skeat, W.W. and C.O. Blagden. 1906. Pagan Races of the Malay Peninsula, London: Macmillan, 2 vols. Skinner, A.M. 1878. ‘Geography of the Malay Peninsula’, JSBRAS, 1, pp. 50–62. —— 1895. ‘Memoir of Captain Francis Light’, JSBRAS, 28, pp. 1–16. Smith, J.S. 1938. ‘On forest economics’, Malayan Forester, 7, pp. 185–187. —— 1959. ‘Past, present and future – A review’, Malayan Forester, 22, pp. 272–280. Snow, C.P. 1993. The Two Cultures (intro.) S. Collini (First published, Pt I:1959; Pt II: 1964), Cambridge: CUP. Soepadmo, E. 1995. ‘Plant diversity of the Malesian tropical rainforest and its phytogeographical and economic significance’, in R. B. Primack and T. E. Lovejoy (eds), Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Southeast Asian Rainforests, New Haven: Yale University Press, pp.19–40. Soepadmo, E. and K.G. Singh (eds). 1973. Proceedings of the Symposium on Biological Resources and National Development, Kuala Lumpur: MNS. Soong Ngin Kwi, G. Haridas, Yeoh Choon Seng and Tan Peng Hua. 1980. Soil Erosion and Conservation in Peninsular Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 469 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Bibliography

•

469

Sopher, D.E. 1965. The Sea Nomads: A Study of the Maritime Boat People of Southeast Asia, Singapore: National Museum. Sothi Rachagan, S. and Tunku Shamsul Bahrin. 1983. ‘Development without destruction: The need for a pragmatic forest policy in Malaysia’, Planter, 59, pp. 491–506. Stamp, L.A. 1962. Asia: A Regional and Economic Geography (First published 1929), 11th Edition, London: Methuen. Stebbing, E.P. 1922–26. The Forests of India, London: John Lane, 3 vols. Steenis, C.G.G.J. van (ed.). 1948–1949. Flora Malesiana: History of Malaysian Phytography, Jakarta: Noordhoff-Kolft. Ser.1, vol. 42. —— (ed.). 1960–72. Flora Malesiana, Series I, vol. 6, Groningen: Wolters-Noordhof. —— 1961. ‘Preservation of tropical plants and vegetation, an essential to the welfare of people: An outlook on the future’, in Wyatt-Smith and Wycherley (eds), Nature Conservation in Western Malaysia, pp. 23–25. —— (ed.). 1974–78. Flora Malesiana: Cyclopaedia of Collectors, Series I, vol. 8, Supp. 2 Alphen ann den Rijn: Sijthoff and Noordhof International. Steenis-Kruseman, M.J. van. 1985. Malaysian Plant Collectors and Collections, C.G.G. J. van Steenis (ed.), Flora Malesiana Series I, vol.1, (First published 1950, Jakarta), Koenigstein, West Germany: Koeltz Scientific Books. Stevens, W.E.1968. ‘The rare large mammals of Malaya’, MNJ, 22, pp. 10–17 Stone, B.C. 1969. ‘National parks as national resource’, in B.C. Stone, Natural Resources in Malaysia and Singapore, Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Scientific and Technological Research in Malaysia and Singapore, 1–4 Feb. 1967, STREMS, II, Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya. Straits Times. 1931. Editorial, ‘Sanctuary for wild life’, 27 Aug. —— 1931. Editorial,‘Will Malaya have the first National Park in Asia?’ 25 Aug. —— 1932. Editorial, ‘A Malay University’, 2 Feb. —— 1932. Editorial, ‘The wild life report’, 15 Aug. —— 1932. Editorial, ‘Wild life proposals’, 19 Aug. —— 1933. Editorial, ‘Wild life’, 11 March. —— 1934. Editorial, ‘A priceless possession’, 7 April. —— 1935. Editorial ‘A wild life refuge’, 9 May. —— 1936. Editorial, ‘Wild life’, 22 May. —— 1936. Editorial, ‘Dropping the pilot’, 9 Nov. —— 1937. Editorial, ‘The life that makes us wild’, 25 Feb. —— 1937. Editorial, ‘Rationing the “ever-hungry dredges’’’, 15 Nov. —— 1938. Editorial, ‘A second chance’, 2 May. —— 1938. Editorial, ‘Captain Ritchie’, 15 July. —— 1938. Editorial, ‘Our Malayan assets’, 17 Aug. —— 1939. Editorial, ‘The Lewis Fermor Report’, 5 Sept. —— 1955. Editorial, ‘Business sense the hard way’, 17 Dec. —— 1956. Editorial, ‘The right to survive’, 26 July. Straits Times Press. 1960. Progress, Kuala Lumpur. Strong, T.A. 1932. ‘The Sakai and shifting cultivation, Malayan Forester, 1, pp. 243–50. Strouts, E.A. 1928. ‘Minor forest products of the Malay Peninsula’, Journal of the Cambridge University Forestry Association, 3, iii, pp. 8–12. —— 1928. ‘The management of dipterocarp forests in Malaya’, Journal of the Cambridge University Forestry Association, 3, iii, pp. 35–36. Suhaini Aznam. 1990. ‘Coastal erosion’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 1 Nov. —— 1991. ‘Waiting game: Islamic state government runs into problems’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 28 Feb. Sundaram, J.K. 1986. A Question of Class: Capital, the State, and Uneven Development in Malaya, Singapore: OUP. Sutherland, H. 1978. ‘The taming of the Trengganu elite’, in R.T. McVey (ed.), Southeast Asian Transitions: Approaches Through Social History, New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 32–85.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 470 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

470

Sutton, K. 1989. ‘Malaysia’s FELDA land settlement model in time and space’, Geoforum, 20, iii, pp. 339–354. Swettenham, F. 1880. ‘From Perak to Slim, and down the Slim and Bernam Rivers’, JSBRAS, 5, pp. 51–68. Swingland, I.R. 1993. ‘The ecology of stability in Southeast Asia’s forests: Biodiversity and common resource property’, in Bryant et al., Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters, Special issue, III, iv-vi, pp. 290–296. Syers, H.C. 1892. ‘Shooting in Selangor’, Selangor Journal, 1, No. 6, 2 Dec., p. 90. —— 1932. ‘Shooting in Selangor’, Pt I, (Reprinted from Selangor Journal) British Malaya, 7, viii, pp. 186–188. —— 1933. ‘Shooting in Selangor’, Pt II, (Reprinted from Selangor Journal) British Malaya, 7, ix, pp. 201–202. Symington, C.F. 1974. Foresters’ Manual of Dipterocarps, (First published 1943, Malayan Forest Records, No.16), Kuala Lumpur: Penerbit Universiti Malaya. Taib Mahmud. 1973. ‘Opening Address’, in Soepadmo and Singh(eds), Proceedings of the Symposium on Biological Resources and National Development, pp. 3–4. Tan Cheng Li and S.S. Yoga. 1999. ‘Sungai Selangor Dam’, Star, 9 March. Tan, E. 1996. ‘Call for detailed study on timber certification plan’, NST, 24 Feb. —— 1999. ‘Clearing of Lojing forest causes siltation woes’, NST, 13 May. —— 1999. ‘Damage to highland areas detected’, NST, 13 May. Tan, K.K. 1994. ‘West must pay the ecological price’, NST, 1 July. _________1994. ‘Aid and positive discrimination needed’, NST, 2 July. _________1994. ‘Politics behind eco-labelling’, NST, 3 July. Tang Hon Tat. 1987. ‘Problems and strategies for regenerating dipterocarp forests in Malaysia’, in F. Mergen and J.R. Vincent (eds), Natural Management of Tropical Moist Forests: Silvicultural and Management Prospects of Sustained Utilization, New Haven: Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, pp. 23–41. Tansley, A.G. 1929. ‘Succession: The concept and its values’, in (ed. anon.), Proceedings of the International Congress of Plant Science, pp. 677–686. Tate, D.J.M., 1996. The RGS History of the Plantation Industry in the Malay Peninsula, Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Teh Tiong Sa and Tunku Shamsul Bahrin. 1992. ‘Environmental impacts of land development in Jengka Triangle, Pahang, Peninsular Malaysia’, in Voon and Tunku Shamsul (eds), The View From Within, pp. 84–117. Teich, M., R. Porter and B. Gustafsson (eds). 1997. Nature and Society in Historical Context, Cambridge: CUP. Tempany, H. and D.H. Grist. 1958. An Introduction to Tropical Agriculture, London: Longmans, Green. Thang Hooi Chiew. 1987. Selective management system: Concept and practice (Peninsular Malaysia), Kuala Lumpur: Forestry Management Unit, Forestry Department. —— 1988. ‘Forest management systems of tropical high forest, with special reference to Peninsular Malaysia’, Forest Ecology and Management, 24, pp. 3–20. —— 1990. ITTO Study on the ecological effects of bringing greater number of lesser known species into trade, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM. —— [n.p.]. ‘Formulation and implementation of Criteria and Indicators for sustainable forest management in Malaysia’. Paper presented at a Workshop: ‘Forest Management and Certification’, 12–13 Dec. 1996, FRIM, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur. Thang Hooi Chiew, Ahmad Said Sajap, Lim Meng Tsai, A.B. Nor Aini and A.I. Ahmad Zainal (eds), 1993. People, the Environment and Forestry: Conflict or Harmony? Proceedings of the 14th Commonwealth Forestry Conference, 13–18 Sept., Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Primary Industries. Thomas, K. 1983. Man and the Natural World, Harmondsworth: Penguin. Thompson, R.J.K.1949. ‘The jungle is armed’, Corona, I, iv, pp. 10–12. Thomson, J.T. 1849. ‘General report on the Residency of Singapore, Drawn up principally with a view of illustrating its agricultural statistics’, JIA, 3, pp. 618–628, 744–755. —— 1865. Sequel to Some Glimpses into Life in the Far East, London: Richardson.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 471 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Bibliography

•

471

—— 1881.‘A sketch of the career of the late James Richardson Logan of Penang and Singapore’, JSBRAS, 7, pp. 75–81. Times of Malaya. 1929: Editorial, ‘An interesting tale’, 2 April. —— 1929. Editorial, ‘Firewood for tin mines’, 3 April. —— 1929. Editorial, ‘Uses of the nipah palm’, 5 April. —— 1930. Editorial, ‘A matter that must be watched’, 5 Dec. Tinsley, B. 1983. Singapore Green: A History and Guide to the Botanic Gardens, Singapore: Times Books International. —— 1989. Visions of Delight: The Singapore Botanic Gardens Through the Ages, Singapore: Botanic Gardens. Tjia, H.D. 1988. ‘The physical setting’, in Cranbrook (ed.), Key Environments: Malaysia, pp. 12–19. Tokugawa, Marquis. 1996. Travels Around Java in the 1920s, (trans.) M. Iguchi, Tokyo: The Tokugawa Reimeikai Foundation. Totman, C. 1989. The Green Archipelago: Forestry in Pre-Industrial Japan, Berkeley: University of California Press. TRAFFIC, 1993. ‘Timber news: Malaysia reacts to illegal logging’, Bulletin, 13, iii, p. 106. Trindade, F.A. and H.P. Lee. 1986. The Constitution of Malaysia: Further Perspectives and Developments, Singapore: OUP. Trocki, C.A. 1979. Prince of Pirates: The Temenggongs and the Development of Johor and Singapore, Singapore: Singapore University Press. Tsuruoka, D. 1991. ‘Cutting down to size’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 4 July. —— 1991,‘Price of a dream’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 25 July. —— 1992. ‘The pen and the saw’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 27 Aug. Tsuruoka, D. and M. Vatikiotis. 1991. ‘Building on success: New development plan downplays ethnic targets’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 27 June. Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1968. ‘Discrepancies between environmental attitude and behaviour: Examples from Europe and China’, Canadian Geographer, 12, iii, pp. 176–191. Turnbull, C.M. 1972. The Straits Settlements, 1826–67: Indian Presidency to Crown Colony, Singapore: OUP. —— 1980. A Short History of Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei, Melbourne: Casson, Australia. —— 1995. Dateline Singapore: 150 years of the Straits Times, Singapore: Singapore Press Holdings. Turner, F.J. 1996. The Frontier in American History (First published 1920), New York: Dover Publications. Utusan Konsumer, 1991. ‘Malaysia eroding away’, No. 235, July 1991. Utusan Malaysia, 1977. Editorial, ‘Krisis balak’, 31 Aug. Vandergeest, P. and N. Peluso. 1995, ‘Territorialization and state power in Thailand’, Theory and Society, 24, pp. 385–426. Vatikiotis, M. 1991. ‘Sitting target: UMNO assembly attacks sultans’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 28 Nov. Veldkamp, J.F. 2002. ‘15 June 2002, 300th anniversary of Rumphius’ death’, Flora Malesiana Bulletin, 13, i, pp. 7–21. Vickers, W.T. 1983. ‘Tropical forest mimicry in swiddens: A reassessment of Geertz’s model with Amazonian data’, Human Ecology, 11, i, pp. 35–45. Vincent, J.R. 1990. ‘Rent capture and the feasibility of tropical forest management’, Land Economics, 66, ii, pp. 212–223. —— 1995. ‘Timber trade, economics, and tropical forest management’, in R.B. Primack and T.E. Lovejoy (eds), Ecology, Conservation and Management of Southeast Asian Rainforests, New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 241–261. Vincent, J.R. and Yusuf Hadi. 1992. ‘Malaysia’, in Sustainable Agriculture and the Environment in the Humid Tropics, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.: National Academy, pp. 440–482. Vincent, J.R., Rozali Mohamed Ali and Associates. 1997. Environment and Development in a Resource Rich Economy: Malaysia under the New Economic Policy, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Institute for International Development, pp. 105–150.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 472 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

472

Voon Phin Keong and Tunku Shamsul Bahrin (eds). 1992. The View From Within: Geographical Essays on Malaysia and Southeast Asia, Special publication of the Journal of Tropical Geography, Kuala Lumpur: Department of Geography, University of Malaya. Vora, F.C. 1969. ‘Malayan Nature Society essay competition: Note from the organiser’, Malayan Nature Journal, 22, p. 89. Wallace, A. R. 1962. The Malay Archipelago (First published 1869, London), New York: Dover Publications. —— 1863. ‘On the physical geography of the Malay Archipelago’, Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, 33, pp. 217–234. Wallaceana. 1975. ‘International nature conservation’, 5, 1 Aug. Walton, A.B. 1937. ‘Jelutong tapping’, Malayan Forester, 6, ii, pp. 17–21. —— 1951. ‘Land planning and forestry’, Malayan Forester’, 14, iv, pp. 212–220. Wang Gungwu (ed.). 1964. Malaysia: A Survey. London: Pall Mall. Ward, T.M. 1833. ‘Contributions to the medical topography of the Prince of Wales Island or Pulau Pinang’, Singapore Chronicle, 18 July. Watson, J.G. 1928. Mangrove Forests of the Malay Peninsula, Malayan Forest Records, No. 6, Singapore: Fraser & Neave. —— 1937. ‘Progress in forest research since 1915, with suggestions for the future’, Malayan Forester, 6, pp. 36–44. —— 1939. ‘Relationship of mining and forestry’, Straits Times, 23 Oct. —— 1939. ‘Forestry and tin mining’, Malayan Forester, 8 , pp. 145–149. —— 1950. ‘Some materials for a forest history of Malaya’, Malayan Forester, 13, pp. 63–72. Watson, K. 1982. ‘Education and colonialism in Peninsular Malaysia’, in K. Watson (ed.), Education in the Third World, London: Croom Helm, pp. 88–107. Webb, B.E. 1950. ‘Logging by tractors’, Malayan Forester, 13, iii, pp. 148–153. Weber, B. 1968. ‘A parks system for West Malaysia’, Oryx, 11, vi, pp. 461–469. Weigum, L. 1971. ‘The last refuge’, MNJ, 24, pp. 132–138. Wells, C. 1988. Six Years in the Malay Jungle (First published New York, 1925), Singapore: OUP. Wells. D.R. 1971. ‘Selangor Branch Report, 1970–71’, MNJ, 24, pp. 38–39. —— 1976. ‘Resident birds’, in Lord Medway and D.R. Wells, The Birds of the Malay Peninsula, vol. 5: Conclusion and Survey of Every Species, H.F. & G. Witherby, pp. 1–33. —— 1988. ‘Birds’, in Cranbrook (ed.), Key Environments: Malaysia, pp.178–195. —— 1990. ‘Taman Negara and ornithology’, in Journal of Wildlife and Parks, 10, A Special Issue to Commemorate the Golden Jubilee of Taman Negara, 1939–1989, pp. 139–147. —— 1999. Birds of the Thai-Malay Peninsula, vol 1, London: Academic Press. Wells, H.G., J. Huxley and G.P. Wells. 1938. The Science of Life, London: Cassell. Westoby, J. 1989. Introduction to World Forestry: People and their Trees, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Wharton, C.H. 1968. ‘Man, fire and wild cattle in Southeast Asia’, in Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, Annotated Proceedings, No. 8, pp. 107–167. Wheatley, P. 1959. ‘Geographical notes on some commodities involved in the Sung maritime trade’, JMBRAS, 32, ii. —— 1961. The Golden Khersonese, Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press. White, L. 1967. ‘The historical roots of our ecological crisis’, Science, 155, No. 3767, pp. 1203– 1207. White, R. 1985. ‘American environmental history: The development of a new historical field’, Pacific Historical Review, 54, pp. 297–335. Whitmore, T.C. (ed.). 1972–73. Tree Flora of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur: Longman, vols 1 and 2. —— 1984. Tropical Rain Forests of the Far East, Oxford: OUP. —— 1988. ‘Forest types and forest zonation’, in Cranbrook (ed.), Key Environments: Malaysia, pp. 20–30. —— 1990. An Introduction to Tropical Rain Forests, Oxford: Clarendon Press. —— 1995. ‘Perspectives in tropical rain forest research’, in A.E. Lugo and C. Lowe (eds), Tropical Forests: Management and Ecology, New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 397–407. Wikkramatileke, R. 1972. ‘The Jengka Triangle, West Malaysia: A regional development project’, Geographical Review, 62, iv, pp. 479–500.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 473 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Bibliography

•

473

Wilkinson, R.J. 1906. Malay Beliefs, London: Luzac. Williams-Hunt, P.D.R. 1952. An Introduction to the Malayan Orang Asli, Kuala Lumpur: Government Press. Willis, K.G. and G.D. Garrod. 1998. ‘Valuation and analysis of consumer demand for forest recreation areas in Peninsular Malaysia’, in Lee et al., Conservation, Management and Development, pp. 300–319. Wilson, E.O. 1993. ‘Forest eco-systems more complex than we know’, in G.H. Aplet, N. Johnson, T. Olson and V. Alarie (eds), Defining Sustainable Forestry, Washington, D.C.: Island Press, pp. xi-xiii. Winstedt, R.O. 1923.‘The literature of Malay folk-lore, beginnings, fables, farcical tales, romance’, in R.J. Wilkinson (ed.), Papers on Malay Subjects, First Series (First published 1907), Kuala Lumpur: FMS Government Press. —— 1924. ‘Karamat: sacred places and persons in Malaya’, JMBRAS, 2, iii, pp. 264–279. —— 1927. Kitab Tawarikh Melayu (First published 1918), Fourth edition, Singapore: Fraser & Neave. —— 1961. Malays: A Cultural History (First published 1947), London: Routledge and Paul. Wong Lin Ken. 1965. The Malayan Tin Industry to 1914, Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Wong, M. 1985. ‘Understorey birds as indicators of regeneration in a patch of selectively logged West Malaysian rain forest’, in A.W. Diamond and T.E. Lovejoy (eds), Conservation of Tropical Forest Birds, Cambridge: ICBP Technical Publication 4, pp. 257–258. Woolley, H.W. 1932. ‘A note on the damar penak industry’, Malayan Forester, 1, v, pp. 202–224. Woon Weng Chuen and Poh Lye Yong. 1998. The Economic Value of Parkia speciosa (petai), Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: Forestry Department/FRIM, 1998, pp. 65–67. World Rainforest Movement (WRFM). 1992. Endangered Rainforests: The Fight for Survival, Penang, 2 vols. Worster, D. 1985. Nature’s Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas (First published 1977, San Francisco, Sierra Club Books), Cambridge: CUP. —— 1988. ‘The vulnerable earth: Towards a planetary history’, in D. Worster (ed.), The Ends of the Earth: Perspectives on Modern Environmental History, Cambridge: CUP, pp. 3–20. —— 1996. ‘The two cultures revised: Environmental history and the environmental sciences’, Environmental History 2, pp. 3–14. Wray, L. 1883. ‘Gutta-producing trees’, Letter to Hugh Low, 25 Sept. 1883, JSBRAS, 12, pp. 207–221. —— 1890. ‘Journal of a collecting expedition to the mountain of Batang Padang, Perak’, JSBRAS, 21, pp. 123–165. Wright, A. and H.A. Cartwright. 1908. Twentieth Century Impressions of British Malaya, London: Lloyd’s Greater Britain. Wright, H.R.C. 1958. ‘The Moluccan spice monopoly’, JMBRAS, 31, iv. Wurtzburg, C.E. 1954. Raffles of the Eastern Isles, London: Hodder & Stoughton. Wyatt-Smith, J. 1950. ‘Forestry, agricultural settlements and land planning’, Malayan Forester, 13, iv, pp. 206–212. —— 1950. ‘Research Items: Virgin Jungle Reserves’, Malayan Forester, 13, pp. 92–94. —— 1953. ‘Review of The Tropical Rain Forest: An Ecological Study’, Malayan Forester, 16, pp. 242–243. —— 1955. ‘Save the belukar’, Malayan Forester, 18, pp. 24–26. —— 1958. ‘Shifting cultivation in Malaya’, Malayan Forester, 21, iii, pp. 139–151. —— 1961. ‘Obituary: [J.C.K. Marshall]’, Malayan Forester, 24, p. 4. —— 1961. ‘Foreword’, Wyatt-Smith and Wycherley (eds), Nature Conservation in Western Malaysia. ——1962. ‘Working group on conservation in South-East Asia’, MNJ, 16, iii, pp. 116–118. —— 1964. ‘A preliminary vegetation map of Malaya with descriptions of the vegetation types’, Journal of Tropical Geography, 18, pp. 200–213. —— 1987. ‘Keynote: Problems and prospects for natural management of tropical moist forests’, in F. Mergen and J.R. Vincent (eds), Natural Management of Tropical Moist Forests: Silvicultural and Management Prospects of Sustained Utilization, New Haven: Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, pp. 6–22. —— 1988. Letter to the Editor, Forest Ecology and Management, 24, pp. 219–223.

KWells_book_4.fm Page 474 Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Nature and Nation

•

474

—— 1995. Manual of Malayan Silviculture for Inland Forests, Malayan Forest Records, No 23, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: FRIM, 2 vols. Wyatt-Smith, J. and A.J. Vincent. 1962. ‘Progressive development in the management of tropical lowland evergreen rain forest and mangrove forest in Peninsular Malaya’, Malayan Forester, 25, iii, pp. 199–223. Wyatt-Smith, J. and P.R.Wycherley (eds). 1961. Nature Conservation in Western Malaysia. An issue to mark the occasion of the twenty-first anniversary of the founding of the Malayan Nature Society, 1940–1961, Kuala Lumpur: Malayan Nature Society Wycherley, P.R.1972. ‘Obituary: Dato Sir Mahmud bin Mat’, MNJ, 25, pp. 4–5. Yasuba, Yasukichi. 1996. ‘Did Japan ever suffer from a shortage of natural resources before World War II?’, Journal of Economic History, 56, iii, pp. 543–560. Yasuyuki, Hikita. 1996. ‘Japanese companies’, inroads into Indonesia under Japanese military domination’, in P. Post and E. Touwen-Bouwsma (eds), Japan, Indonesia and the War: Myths and Realities, BKI, 152, iv, pp. 656–698. Yeo Kim Wah. 1982. The Politics of Decentralization: Colonial Controversy in Malaya, 1920–1929, Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Yip Yat Hoon. 1939. Development of the Tin Mining Industry in Malaya, Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press. Yoga, S.S. 1999. ‘Perils of a lake called Chini’, Star, 20 April . —— 1999. ‘Buffers for protected areas’, Star, 6 July. Yong Chai Ting. 1985. ‘Compensatory plantations in Peninsular Malaysia’, in Proceedings: Seminar on Forest Plantation Development in Malaysia, 9–14 July, Kota Kinabalu: Forest Department Sabah, pp. 35–44. Yong, Stephen K.T. 1987. ‘Opening Address’, in SAM, Proceedings of the Conference on ‘Forest Resources Crisis in the Third World’, pp. 6–9. Yoshimasa, Shibata. 1996. ‘The monetary policy in the Netherlands East Indies under the Japanese administration’, in P. Post and E. Touwen-Bouwsma (eds), Japan, Indonesia and the War: Myths and Realities, BKI, 152, iv, pp. 699–726. Young, D. 1972. Four Five: The Story of the 45 Commando, Royal Marines, 1943–1971, London: Leo Cooper. Zaharah Mahmud. 1992. ‘The traditional Malay ecumene of the Peninsula: A historical-geographical essay on the position of wet rice’, in Voon and Tunku Shamsul (eds), The View From Within, pp. 297–321. Zainal Abidin Bakar. (Compiler). 1984. Kumpulan Pantun Melayu [An Anthology of Malay Pantun], Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Zul Makhshar Md Shaari. 1999. ‘Malaysia’s role as a leader in tropical forest management’. Paper presented during the Malaysian Timber Marketing Convention, 29 Sept.–1 Oct., Kuala Lumpur: MTIB.

THESES AND DISSERTATIONS Halinah Bamadhaj. 1975. ‘The Impact of the Japanese Occupation of Malaya on Malay Society and Politics, 1941–46’, MA thesis, University of Auckland. Harper, T.N. 1992. ‘The Colonial Inheritance: State and Society in Malaya, 1945–1957’, PhD dissertation, Cambridge University. Laidlaw, R. 1994. ‘The Virgin Jungle Reserves of Peninsular Malaysia: The ecology and dynamics of small protected areas in managed forest’, PhD dissertation, Cambridge University. Olivier, R.C.D. 1978. ‘On the Ecology of the Asian Elephant, Elephas maximus Linn.: With particular reference to Malaya and Sri Lanka’, PhD dissertation, Cambridge University.

KWells_index.fm Page 475 Friday, June 17, 2005 3:56 PM

Index Abdul Aziz Abdul Majid 378 Abdul Aziz Ishak 378 Abdul Majid Mohd Shahid 263 n.189, 272–273 Abdul Rahim Kajai 246 Abdul Rahman, Orang Kaya Semantan (Tok Bahaman) 10, 128, 241 Abdul Rahman, Tunku 324 Abdul Razak, Tun 325–326, 329 Abdullah, C.D. 241 Abdullah, Munshi 29 Aborigines: conflict with forestry 248, 249; Department 248; reserves for 248–249; see also Acts and Ordinances; Orang Asli, government policy towards Abu Hassan 369 Acts and Ordinances: Aborigines Protection 179–180, 248, 249, 262 n. 174; Environmental Quality 312, 320; Hill Lands 244; Land Conservation 352, 354, 355, 380; National Forestry 316–317, 347; National Parks 321, 324, 344, 345, 420; Protection of Wildlife 311, 312, 343; Town and Country Planning 404 Adam Malik 338 Adibah Amin 322 Africa: hunting 192, 193; land degradation 2, 154, 169, 175, 176, 192–193, 201; parks 207, 211, 213, 214, 215; wildlife preservation 189, 201, 203, 204, 205 Agenda 21: Malaysia’s stand 419–420; see also Earth Summit Ahmad Muhamed, Captain 202 Ali Wallace 15 Alliance (Barisan) Party 416 Alvis, M.V. 16 Amazon 365, 366 Anderson, James 28 Anderson, John 29 Anderson, Sir John 93, 94 Animals: argus pheasant 169, 210, 202; banteng 202; bat 319; civet 293; deer 133, 135, 204, 239, 290, 291, 293, 312, 339, 342; displaced 328; distribution 3–4; elephant 3, 8, 10 12, 14, 15, 38, 64, 67, 69, 107, 127, 133, 137, 141, 169, 181, 190, 192, 193, 194– 196,197, 198, 200, 202–204,205, 207, 209, 212, 218, 245–246, 250, 289–290, 291, 328,

343; gaur 7, 69, 127, 133, 169, 190–191, 193, 194, 196, 200, 209, 211, 245, 289, 291, 289, 291; habitat loss for 192, 197, 282, 290; impact of logging on 290, 326, 328, 342– 343, 351; mouse-deer 167, 194, 282, 312; primates 328, 342, 343, 344, 351, 353 ; rhinoceros 2, 3, 8, 10, 12, 38, 69, 127, 135, 139, 190, 192, 194, 196, 197, 200, 201, 202, 211, 212, 289, 291, 292, 322; tapir 30, 190, 191, 200; tiger 2, 3, 9, 10, 38, 167, 169, 191, 192, 194, 197, 200, 209, 218, 245, 246, 282, 290, 292, 293, 339; wild pig 7, 209, 239, 245, 246, 291, 339, 343; see also Wildlife Annandale, T.N. 179 Anwar Ibrahim 380, 404 Appanah, S. 351 APPEN (Asia-Pacific People’s Environmental Network) 366, 367 Arnold, Joseph 29 Arshad Ayub 316 ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) 284, 345, 349, 373, 382 Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission 279 Asiatic Society, Bengal (Calcutta) 29, 41 Austria 20, 369 Bailey, A.S. 88 Bain, V.L. 232 Balasingam, E. 285 Bali 369: Action Plan 338, 393; National Parks Conference 392 Banks, H. H. 27, 193, 198, 200, 202 Banks, Sir Joseph 27–28, 30, 36 Barbier, Edward 382–383 Barnard, B.H.F. 73, 93, 94 Baumgarten, F.L. 40 Begbie, P.J. 42 Belfield, H. Conway 88 Belgrade Charter 317 Benkulen (Bengkulu) 28–32, 34, 35, 40 Berita Harian 403 Biodiversity 2–3, 7–8, 15, 38, 49, 170, 280, 287, 325,337–347; CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) 392, 420–422; Chiang Mai Declaration 341; effects of logging on 342, 343, 349–352, 394; and genetic resources 421–422; National Steering Committee on 420; see also Species

KWells_index.fm Page 476 Friday, June 17, 2005 3:56 PM

Nature and Nation Birch, E.W. 74 Birch, J.W.W. 60 Bird, Isabella 67 ‘Blue Print’: Ecologist 308; Malayan Nature Society 310, 311, 314, 338, 392 Borneo 6, 46–47, 66, 70, 96, 97, 98, 230, 265, 318 Botanic Gardens: Bogor 28, 35, 76, 279; Calcutta 28, 29, 31, 36, 60; Cambridge 28; Chelsea Physic Gardens 28, 156; Kew 16, 27, 28, 41, 48, 49, 57, 61, 71, 72–73, 93, 274, 279; Penang 6, 15, 16, 49, 76; Singapore 15, 16, 31, 36, 48, 76, 233; see also Ridley Botany: agricultural experimentation 33–37; see also Natural Science, exploration Boussingault, J.B. 40, 41 Boyd, E.E.G. 153 Brandis, Dietrich 43, 93, 117 Brandt Commission 320 British Ecological Society 174, 278, 308 British Empire Exhibition 97 British Military Administration 240 British policy and administration xxxi, 11, 43; see also British Residents/Advisers British Residents/Advisers: role in forest administration 61, 62, 69, 75, 76, 87, 88, 89, 113, 126, 152, 153, 180, 202, 204, 212, 213, 416 Brockman, Sir Edward 156 Brundtland, G.H. 365 Brundtland Commission Report 345–346, 370, 371 Browne, F.E. 106 Bruenig, E.F. 351, 396, 407 Buitenzorg: see Botanic Gardens, Borgor Bukit Timah 81n.120 Burgess, P.F. 193, 276, 292, 310, 342 Burkill, I.H. 15, 17 Burma: forest service 73–75, 94, 95, 107, 156, 201, 230, 231; taungya 179; wildlife administration 200 Burn-Murdoch A.M. 75–76, 88, 89, 94 Butler, A. 73 Butler, A. L. 168 Butterworth, W.J. 43 Caldwell, Keith 312 Cameron, J. 39 Cameron, W. 157 Cameron Highlands 130, 136, 137; Orang Asli in 138; see also Highland development Campbell, Charles 29, 47 n. 15 Canada: technical aid 276 Cantley, N.15, 49 Carey Island, off Kelang 198 Carnarvon, Lord 48, 61 Carson, Rachel 308

•

476

Cassava 8–9, 13, 38, 65, 71, 136, 177, 178, 231, 238, 239, 240, 242, 268, 269, 270 Cator, G.E. 153 Cavenagh, Colonel Orfeur 36 Cerruti, G.B. 70, 180–181 Ceylon 28, 157, 171; Forest Department 108; wildlife and national parks administration 49, 108, 157, 171, 215, 288 Chamberlain, Joseph 72–74 Champion, H.G. 174 Chief Ministers (Menteri Besar): and forest affairs 246, 267, 267–270, 275, 313, 320, 321, 325, 362 n. 169, 416 Chief Secretary, see Resident-General China: deforestation 173; forestry xxxi; trade with xxix, 8, 14, 27, 33, 108, 173, 192, 340 Chinese: attitude to forests 8, 10; in Cameron Highlands 153; charcoal industry 66, 235; enterprise 8, 14, 15, 33, 52, 59, 70, 87, 114, 138, 140, 142, 159, 175, 210, 232, 235, 247, 293; evasion of forest laws 128; herbal medicine 17, 38, 201; hunting among 168, 193, 209; kongsi 132–133, 138; mining and wood consumption 60, 75, 108, 137, 255– 256, 257; NTFP trade and industry 59, 62, 87, 93–97, 99, 100, 131–133, 135, 138, 174, 176, 254, 257, 340–342, 353, 399; political ideology 214, 229, 238, 239; relations with Orang Asli 181, 182, 239; shifting cultivation 37–38, 44, 65, 66, 68, 112, 131, 132, 133, 180, 191; squatters 240, 246, 247, 269, 402–403; trade in animal parts 200, 201, 231, 235, 243, 254, 255, 256; utilization of mangrove habitat 173; wood industry 60, 87, 91, 106, 107, 108, 126, 128, 138, 141, 173, 326, 327, 328; see also Fuel, charcoal production; Timber, industry Chipp, W.F. 106, 108 CHOGM (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting) 370 Christ, Th. Heer 94 Christie, C.N. 68 Cini, Tasik (Lake) 393 CITES (Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species) 312, 343 Clarke, Sir Andrew 48, 49 Cleghorn, H. 41, 42 Clementi, Sir Cecil 105, 155, 208, 211, 213 Clements, Frederic 171 Clifford, Sir Hugh 11, 70, 72, 105, 112–113, 130, 139, 166, 167, 168, 169; and wildlife controversy 203–204, 208 Colombo Plan 279, 289, 328 Communist insurrection: see Emergency Comyn-Platt, Sir Thomas 214, 215 Conlay, W.L. 139 Conservation advocacy: Anglo-American movement 165, 171; see also Environmental movement

KWells_index.fm Page 477 Friday, June 17, 2005 3:56 PM

Index Conservation strategies, Malaysia: State 320, 352,355; National 405–406 Corbett, Jim 199, 214, 215 Corner, E.J.H. 233, 234, 285, 286 Cranbrook, Earl of, Report 304 n. 264; 369 Crawfurd, John 29 Crimes Investigation Department: see Logging, illegal Cubitt, G.E.S. 87, 88, 89, 90, 94, 95, 96, 102– 103, 104–105, 106, 110, 149, 150, 159, 205– 206, 423 Curtis, Charles 49 Daim Zainuddin, Tun 404 Dalhousie, Lord: Memorandum 42–43 D’Almeida, José 46 Dams 308–309, 329, 348; impact on habitat 290, 291, 328; Kenyir 326, 328–329, 338; Lebir 355; Muda 319–320; Pedu 319–320; Sungai Selangor 419; Tembeling (proposed) 325–327, 338; Temengor 326, 338; Tennessee Valley 307–308 DAP (Democratic Action Party) 403 Darling, Sir Frank 339 Darwin, Charles 165–166, 189 Davy, F.J. 137 Decentralization xxxii, 103, 112–113, 173– 175, 211, 212, 213, 250–251, 416 Deforestation 40–43, 61, 66, 67, 71–72, 150, 170, 173, 182, 310, 312, 313, 314, 317, 318, 345; and climate 41–44, 404–405; see also Drought and Flood Dennys, F.O.B. 194 Desborough, C.E.M. 128 Desch, H.E.106, 234 Development: see Highland development; Land; Land development authorities; Land use; Rural development Dipterocarps 3, 62, 249, 271, 325, 339, 347, 350, 351, 353 Disease 6, 7, 28, 32–33, 63, 64, 208, 341; malaria 33, 165, 173, 183 n. 3, 257 n. 24 District Officer/s: role in forest administration 87, 89, 127, 128, 130, 131, 153, 166, 178, 179, 196, 202, 281 Dobby, E.H.G. 283 Douglas, F.W. 70, 130 Drought and flood 1, 6, 19, 42, 43, 63, 65, 105, 142, 171,173; see also ENSO-El Niño Duff, R.W.: concession 141, 148 n.123 Durham, H.E. 17 DWNP (Department of Wildlife and National Parks): see Game Department Earth Summit, ‘Agenda 21’, 371–372, 381– 382, 392, 401; ‘Forest Principles’ 371, 382, 392, 418; Rio de Janeiro 369, 371, 384 Ecologist 308

•

477 Ecology: and forestry 172, 175; tropical 165, 67, 171–172, 278–279–280 Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific 349 Edgar, A.T. 200 Edwards, J.P. 142 Ehrlich, Paul 308 EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) 271, 320, 326, 327, 329, 367, 380, 405–406 Emergency 229, 240–243, 245, 246, 248, 252, 256; squatter resettlement 241–242 Empire Forestry 93, 170; Association 102; Conference 88, 102, 120 n. 126, 169, 183 Endau-Rompin: Orang Asli in 133; campaign 320–326 ENSO/El Niño 6, 63, 70, 309 Environment, Ministry of: see MOSTE Environmental conferences: Human Environment, Stockholm 312; see also Bali; UNCED Environmental degradation: see Land, degradation Environmental ethics: education 95, 168, 248, 266, 278, 280–291, 315–316, 325, 338; stewardship 317, 405–408 Environmental management 43, 61, 172, 266, 314–315 Environmental movement (global) xxxii, 283, 307–309, 365–372, 423; FoE (Friends of the Earth) 366, 368; NGOs (Non-governmental Environmental Organizations) 284, 345, 346; Rainforest Action Group 345; Rain Forest Action Network 365; WRN (World Rainforest Network) 366, 368, 369; see also USA, conservation movement; WWF Environmental NGOs (Peninsular Malaysia) 285, 286–287, 289, 294, 310–311, 312, 314, 317, 321, 322, 324, 329–330, 331–332 n. 54; 417–418; CAP (Consumer Assoc. Penang) 331 n. 54; cooperation with government 419–420; Endau-Rompin conservation campaign 321–322; EPSM (Environmental Protection Society, Malaysia) 322, 326; ESCAP (Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific Region) 349; ‘Highland Towers’ and Genting Highlands Campaign 403; and Kenyir Dam 320, 393; MNS (Malayan/Malaysian Nature Society) 285, 286–287, 289, 294, 310–311, 312, 314, 338, 345, 370, 402, 417, 418; Malayan Forestry Society 322; SAM (Sahabat Alam Malaysia) 321, 326, 366, 367, 418; Taman Negara campaign 325–327; WWFM (World Wildlife Fund, Malaysia/World Wide Fund for Nature, Malaysia) 311, 317, 320, 327, 344, 351, 352, 353, 355,384, 403, 404, 418, 419, 421 EPU (Economic Planning Unit) 273, 280, 327, 405 EU (European Union)/EEC (European Economic Community) 349, 368, 383, 407

KWells_index.fm Page 478 Friday, June 17, 2005 3:56 PM

Nature and Nation European colonial society: health and recreation 154, 156–157 Evans, I.H.N. 179, 204, 205 Exploration and mapping 166–168, 313 FAO 277, 279, 281, 284, 312–313, 318, 345, 348, 349, 350, 396; Forestry Commission 281; see also UNDP Farquhar, William, and natural history 16, 30 Federal Constitution 250, 266, 267, 287, 316– 317, 324, 347, 376, 416, 420 Federal Council 68, 88, 102, 150, 153, 157, 216 Federal–State relations xxxii; 288, 316–317, 320, 344–345, 374–381, 408, 416; see also Endau-Rompin, campaign FELCRA (Federal Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation Authority) 319, 354 FELDA 270, 271, 275, 277–278, 286, 289, 319, 343, 354, 393; see also Pahang, Jengka Triangle Ferguson-Davie, Rev. C.J. 157 Fermor, Sir Lewis 153–154, 216 Fernandez, E. 16 Fetherstonhaugh, A.H. 195, 202, 215 Fisher, C.A. 283 Floods: see ‘Great Flood’; Drought and Flood; ENSO/El Niño FMS (Federated Malay States): inauguration 57, 68–69; forest management 73–76, 87, 93–94, 113 Foenander, E.C.190, 194, 236, 255, 290, 378 Forbes, Henry, 6 Forest administration xxix, 43, 48–49, 62, 71, 73, 74–76, 89, 92, 142, 150–151, 156, 349– 350, 352, 377, 415; under BMA (British Military Administration) and the Emergency 339–340; during the Japanese Occupation 229–239; relations with Orang Asli 178–179, 249; see also Forest Laws and Enactments; Forest/ Forestry Department; Aborigines, government policy towards Forest cover xxix, 395, 416, 417, 420 Forest/Forestry Department: under colonial administration xxxi, 87, 92, 93, 415; Chief Conservator/Adviser 40, 75–76, 87, 88, 89, 92, 94, 95, 112, 113, 149, 151, 157, 170, 178, 206, 249, 267, 275, 279, 351, 353, 416; influence 112, 113–114, 175, 421; origins of 49, 71–72, 74–76; power and reorganization 346; role in policy-making 401; staff training and recruitment 70, 72–73, 93–95, 235, 236, 238, 245, 251, 377–379 Forest ecology: Danum Valley, Sabah 318, 398; Dulit, Sarawak 171–172; Pasoh, Negeri Sembilan 280, 318; proposed core areas 352; protection 392, 399 Forest laws and enactments 43, 59–69, 87, 91, 92, 112, 113, 126, 127–128, 141; evasion of, and opposition to 91–92, 125, 127–129, 139,

•

478

236, 237, 245, 266, 269; see also Orang Asli, displacement of Forest policy: Interim Forest Policy 265, 266, 268, 271, 276, 316; and Malay agriculture 43, 149; opposition to 150–152; see also National Forestry Policy ‘Forest Principles’: see ‘Earth Summit’ Forest produce: see NTFP; Timber Forest Reserves: degradation and loss 3, 8, 27, 40, 41, 42, 149, 150, 152, 192, 196, 197, 274, 276, 278, 280, 338, 343, 347, 355, 372–373, 395; encroachment 127–128, 235, 268–270; excisions/degazetting 150, 245, 267, 275, 289, 321; 344, 392–395, 401, 417; Malay/ Forest Reserve 129; PRF (Permanent Reserved Forest) 68, 69, 71, 89, 90, 91, 104, 108, 109, 111–112, 127, 129, 142, 143, 151, 155, 156, 159, 170, 177, 178, 179, 199, 203, 206, 231, 232, 240, 242, 248, 249, 253, 265, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 273, 275, 276, 277, 278, 290, 292 315, 317, 321, 342, 345, 346, 352, 353, 354, 355, 372, 392–395 399, 401, 404, 406, 418–419; Protection Forest 89, 105, 115, 151, 205, 238, 266, 272, 276, 279, 315; recreational 339, 394; replacement (Kawasan Ganti) 355, 393–394; village (kampung)127; see also Game Reserves; TPA Foresters: see Forest Department, Chief Conservator/Adviser Forestry: Act 346; Bandung Conference 382; and botany 72; Commercial Regeneration Felling 91, 116 n. 32; Forest Research and Development 266; mapping and inventory 32, 104–105, 113, 276, 313, 350 396; multiple-use 317, 393, 397, 421; MUS (Malayan Uniform System) 253, 255, 276, 350, 355; ‘Natural Forest Management’ 102– 105, 355; regeneration and rehabilitation 7, 9, 12, 13, 65, 74, 91, 96, 109, 110, 111, 152; 159, 177 179, 180, 209, 235, 236, 242, 245, 253, 266, 343, 348, 350, 351, 355, 357; RIF (Regeneration Improvement Felling) 91, 109, 110, 116 n. 30, 253; silvicultural management 75, 99, 109–110, 151, 279, 280, 346, 350, 401; SMS (Selective Management System) 350, 351, 355, 395–397; ‘sustainable management’, 75, 104–105, 110–111, 266, 313–314, 351, 353, 365, 370, 384, 395–399, 421, 422; see also Forestry institutes FRI/ FRIM, GTZ; National Forestry Act; National Forestry Policy Forestry institutes: Dehra Dun 93, 94, 95, 96, 279; FRI (Forest Research Institute)/FRIM (Forest Research Institute Malaysia) 95, 170, 175, 234, 251 271, 275, 278–279, 280, 346, 394, 401, 402; Oxford School of Forestry 93; Royal Technical Engineering College, Cooper’s Hill 93; United Kingdom 93, 102 Foxworthy, F.W. 95, 103, 104, 105, 169, 170 Freezailah Che Yeom 385 n. 26, 425 n. 26

KWells_index.fm Page 479 Friday, June 17, 2005 3:56 PM

Index FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) 382, 384, 399, 407 Fuel: charcoal production 41, 59, 62, 63, 65, 66, 68, 91, 235, 236, 255, 270; see also Wood Gambier 37–38, 65, 133 Game/DWNP (Wildlife and National Parks) Department 127, 200, 201–202 206–207, 208, 211, 216, 245, 271, 286–292, 311, 344; Game Warden/s 193, 194, 195, 197, 199– 200, 201–202 204, 205–206, 210, 211–212, 215, 216, 288 290–291; Rangers 206, 211– 212, 285, 288, 287, 290; relations with Orang Asli 205–206, 288, 292; see also Game Reserves; Wildlife Parks Game Reserves: Cior 200, 289; Encroachment on 289; Endau-Keluang 200, 321; EndauKota Tinggi 200, 289; Gunung Tahan 200, 203, 207–208, 210; Kerau 200, 204, 289, 291; Segamat 200, 289; Serting, 200, 204; Sungai Lui 204; Sungkai 156, 200, 289, 291 Gater, B.A.R. 208 GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) 369, 372, 386 n. 35 Germany: forestry 42, 71, 93, 94, 171, 175; timber trade 368, 383; see also GTZ Gibson, Alexander 41 Gilliland, H.B. 229, 287 Gimlette, J.D. 15, 17 Global Environmental Facility 345 Gore, Al 382 Great Depression 101, 108, 128, 143, 177, 180, 211, 231, 307 ‘Great Flood’ 6, 100, 140, 176, 190, 309 ‘Great Wind’ (Angin Besar) 6 Green, C.F. 202 Grenier, Charles 234 Griffith, William 17 Group of 77 (G77) 371 Grove, R. 41 GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeid) 399, 401 Guillemard, Sir Laurence 102–103, 114, 201, 205, 217 Gunung (hill/mountain): Berembun 158; Bunga Buah 329; Hijau 61; Jerai 238; Korbu 405; Ledang (Mt. Ophir) 30, 39, 195; see also Hill stations; Tahan, Gunung Gurney, Sir Henry 239 Haji Noah 329 Haneda, Y. 233, 234 Hartley, R.R. 200 Hawkins, Gerald 208, 285, 287 Hay, William 193 Hayes, Randy 366 Hays, Samuel 308 Hideki, General Tojo 234

•

479 Highland development 156–159; 402–405; Cameron Highlands 137, 157–159, 177, 232, 244, 329, 404; Fraser’s Hill 128, 157,158, 404, 405; Genting Highlands 329, 403, 404; Janda Baik, Pahang 402–403; Lojing, Kelantan 380, 405 Highway erosion: ‘East-West’ Highway 404; Fraser’s Hill 405; Karak 329 Hill, H.C. Report 74–75 Hill stations: Gunung Angsi, Negeri Sembilan 156; Keledang, Perak 156; Bukit Kutu (Treacher’s Hill), Selangor 156; Maxwell’s Hill (Bukit Larut), Perak 156; see also Highland development, Cameron Highlands; Fraser’s Hill Hirohito, Emperor 233 Hislop, J.A. 285 Holttum, R.E. 233, 287, 301 n. 193 Hooker, Joseph 48, 49, 61 Hooker, Sir William 30, 41 Hooper, J. 28 Hornaday, William 192, 194, 197 Horsfield, Thomas 28, 29, 30 Hubback, Theodore 182, 193, 197; and wildlife controversy 198–217 Hulu Langat 133, 135 Humboldt, Alexander von 40, 41 Hummel, C. 91, 94, 105,150 Humphreys, W.L. 139. Hunting 177, 181, 192–194, 195–196, 197, 208–209, 212, 290, 311, 343–344 Hussain Al-Aidit, Sayid 35 Hussein Onn, Tun 321–322 IADP (Integrated Agricultural Development Programme) 319–320 IBP (International Biological Programme) 280, 318 IBRD (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) 266, 271, 272, 277 ICPN (International Congress for the Protection of Nature) 210, 212; see also IUCN ICSU (International Council of Scientific Unions) 280 India: forestry and conservation 41–43, 48, 69, 74, 75, 93, 171, 193; hunting 192, 193; wildlife administration 200, 206, 214, 215, 288 Indonesia 284, 365; see also the Netherlands Indies Inge, Dean W.R., 211 International development agencies: DANCED (Danish Cooperation for Environment and Development) 412 n. 83; JICA (Japanese International Cooperation Agency) 355; see also FAO; GTZ; UNDP; World Bank ISA (Internal Security Act) 318

KWells_index.fm Page 480 Friday, June 17, 2005 3:56 PM

Nature and Nation

•

480

Jack, William 29, 30, 31 Jacobs, M. 340 Japan: forestry xxxi, Nippon Mining Co. 141, 237; radioactive waste 367; timber trade 275, 349, 352, 370, 383; wildlife imports 344; see also International development agencies, JICA Japanese Occupation 229–240; companies and enterprise 229–232, 235–237; forest administration 230–238; MPAJA (Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army) 232, 236, 239; scientific endeavour 229, 233–234 Java 6, 27, 28, 29, 35, 43, 93, 197, 204–205, 206, 244, 284, 287; see also Netherlands Indies Jengka Triangle: see Land development authorities, SJSB Johor: early development and NTFP trade 38, 39, 44–47, 58, 70, 91, 131; Endau-Rompin 142, 321, 324; Forest loss 238, 242, 255; forest management 142–143; Forest reservation 143; Mount Ophir (Gunung Ledang) 30, 39, 195; Muar 12, 44, 255; State Park 345; wildlife 195, 198, 200, 202, 207, 233, 324; wood and timber 103, 106, 142, 255, 323; see also Endau-Rompin, campaign; UFMS

of logging 352; timber extraction 141, 353, 354, 374; Tumpat 141; uprising 139; wildlife, 196, 200, 202, 207–208, 209, 210, 212, 215, 287, 289–290, 292; wood and timber 103, 141, 253, 347, 352, 353–355; see also National Park, King George V; SEPU; UFMS Kemp, P.R. 198, 200 Keruh (Pengkalan Hulu): shifting cultivation 190, 242, 269; Reserve 107, 138, 154, 142, 180, 190, 242 Khir Johari, Tan Sri 404 Khor, Martin 369–370 King, Sir George 60, 61, 76 King George V National Park: see National Park Kinta: conflict between forestry and mining 63,152–154; erosion 242; Japanese forest management 236; Kinta Hill Reserve 151, 153, 154; Orang Asli 137, 178; shifting cultivation 177–178, 242, 268; wood famine 136 Kitchener, H.J. 285 Kloss, C. Boden 158, 179, 197 Koenig, James 28 Koga, Tadamichi 234 Korbu 107, 137; forest reserves 151, 242; Orang Asli 137; shifting cultivation 268; timber 107 Koriba, Kwan 233–234 Kuala Kangsar 14, 58, 64, 67–68, 151, 187, 246, 254; forest 151; Orang Asli 151; shifting cultivation 268 Kuala Kubu Baharu: see Selangor Kuala Lumpur Declaration 371 Kudin, Tengku 193 Kunstler, Herman 60 Kyd, Robert 28 Kynnersley, C.W.S. 72

Kato, Takeo 233 Kedah: drought 6; early development 8, 11, 13, 14, 46–47, 64; forest loss 270; forestry and forest management 95,103, 139, 141, 143, 237, 339; landlessness 269; Muda Irrigation Scheme 270; Muda and Merbau valleys 141; Pedu 270, 319; shifting cultivation 143, 190, 238, 240, 242, 268, 269; wood 103, 237, 238 Kelantan: climatic events 6, 63; conservation strategy 351, 352, 355; early development and NEP trade 8, 70, 133; forests 11, 23, 143, 237, 239, 274, 313; forest reservation 141; Hulu Kelantan 354; illegal logging 379–380; KPK (Kompleks Perkayuan Kelantan) 354; Kuala Betis 133, 138; land development 353–355, 380; Lebir 141, 143, 354–355; Lojing 380–405; National Park 203, 207, 250; Nenggiri 143, 177, 243; NTFP 140; Orang Asli 133, 139,177,179; Pergau 141; shifting cultivation 139, 143, 177; State Conservation Strategy 320, 351, 351; study

Land: Conservation Act 271, 352, 354, 355; degradation 8, 27, 40, 42, 65, 150, 175, 176, 177, 178, 238, 242, 244–245, 247, 272, 274, 293, 309–310, 317, 324, 325, 329, 346, 354– 355, 402–405, 416–417; ‘idle land’ 319, 346; illegal clearance 274–275; LCC: (Land Capability Classification) 271, 272, 277, 289, 315, 416; see also Squatters Land development authorities/corporations: KADA (Kembu Agricultural Development Authority) 380; KESEDAR (South Kelantan Development Authority) 354; KETENGAH (Central Terengganu Development Authority) 394; Pesaka Terengganu Ltd, 274; SJSB (Syarikat Jengka Sdn Bhd) 271; YAKIN (Kelantan Development Foundation) 380; see also FELCRA; FELDA; Rural Development Land use and policy, 37 40, 64, 65, 66, 89, 103, 114, 125, 143, 149, 170, 180, 244, 249, 265, 267, 269, 273, 281, 395, 417; see also National Land Use Policy; Shifting cultivation

Ishak Haji Muhammad 246–247, 404; Putera Gunong Tahan 246–247 ITTO (International Tropical Timber Organization) 341, 366, 368–369, 370, 382, 284; Guidelines and Criteria 383, 395, 398, 401 IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) 283,284, 288, 312, 318, 322, 326, 329, 341, 345, 346 365, 366, 393, 394, National Parks Conference 392 IUPN, (International Union for the Protection of Nature) 283

KWells_index.fm Page 481 Friday, June 17, 2005 3:56 PM

Index Landlessness 266, 269, 270, 277; see also Squatters Landscape: rural xxix–xxx, 1; as political space xxxi; early human impact on 7–8 Landslides 6, 154, 403–405 Langkawai Declaration 370 ‘Lat’ (Mohamed Nor Khalid) 322 Le Doux, Jacques Alfonse 66, 274 Leech, H.W.C. 166–167 Leech, J.B.M. 193 Lekagul, Boonsong 284 Leonard, G.R. 216 Lias, Brau de Saint-Pol 67 Light, Captain Francis 32, 33 Lim Keng Yaik 375 Linné, Carl (Linnaeus) xxx–xxxi, 31 Linnean Society 72, 233 Little, Robert 36 Lloyd George, David 102 Logan, J. R. 31, 32, 34, 41–43, 45, 46, 47, 61,129–130 Logging: effects of 322, 329, 342–343, 348, 353, 354, 395, 396, 405, 406–407; hill 151, 267, 276, 277, 347–348, 350; illegal xxxi, 373–374, 376–379, 381, 403; panglung 142; see also Forestry, MUS, RIF, SMS Loke Wan Tho 285 Lovat, Lord, 102 Low, Sir Hugh 57, 60–64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 76,150, 157, 168 Low, Captain James 33, 39 Macalister, Captain Norman 32 MacDonand, Ramsay 210, 214 Mackenzie, J. 193 MacNaught, W.H. 205–206, 212 Mahathir Mohamad 307, 313 322, 326, 344, 365, 367–371, 372, 384, 394 Mahidin Mohammad Rashad 273 Mahmud Mat, Sir, 88, 285 Malabar: herbalists 17, teak depletion 40 Malay/s: access to forests/ forest produce 69, 74, 89, 125–127, 129; agriculture and colonial forest management 112, 149, 155, 159; agricultural policy 125, 127, 159, 319; architecture 60,100, 126; attitude to wildlife 209; business enterprise 47, 59, 96,153, 238, 250, 253–256, 274, 315, 317, 320, 376; colonial attitude to 88, 101; cultivation 12– 13; economy and polity 1, 11–12; and environmentalism 321–322, 325; in forest service 84, 92, 128, 192, 206; and forests 1– 17, 129–130, 241, 340–341; hunting 12, 192, 193–196, 205, 245; knowledge of biota 15– 17; nationalism xxxi, 241, 242, 248, 292; NTFP collection and trade 12, 15–16, 44, 96–97, 139–140, 237; political culture xxxi; 269, 320, 325; relations with Orang Asli 9–

•

481 10, 136–137, 138, 180, 248; Reserves 92, 126, 127–129, 153, 179, 180, 231, 320; response to forest laws and reservation 91–92, 125– 129, 139–140, 246–248, 403; rubber planting 149; shifting cultivation 37, 64–65, 128, 143, 176–177, 190; trade in animal parts 192, 195, 200, 201; see also Environmental ethics, education, stewardship; Nature, Malay/Malaysian perceptions of MAB (Man and Biosphere Programme) 318 Malay Mail 106, 111, 154, 155, 173, 210, 216, 232–233 Malay Peninsula: geography and ecology 1–6, 8, 11; floristic boundary 139 Malaya (Five-Year) Plan: Second 270 Malaya-Borneo Exhibition 97 Malayan/Malaysian Naturalist 217, 309 Malayan Nature Journal 292, 309 Malayan Union/unification, concept 211, 213, 241, 245, 250, 261 n. 139, 268 Malaysia (Five-Year) Plan: First 270, 273–274; Second, 277–278, 309, 347; Third 314–315, 316, 319, 321, 338, 347, 353; Fourth, 347; Fifth 347, 349, 373; Sixth 350, 421; Seventh, 402, 418 Malaysian-German Forest Management 341, see also GTZ Malesia 50 n. 6, 76 Manser, Bruno 367 MARA (Majlis Amanah Rakyat) 271, 274 MARDI (Malayan Agricultural Research and Development Institute) 342 Marsden, William 29 Marsh, George Perkins 42 Marshall, J.C.K. 249, 281, 283, 285–286, 368 Maxwell, Sir George 157, 166, 172, 173, 194, 197, 198, 202, 281 Maxwell, W.E. 71 McClelland, John 49 McClure, H.E. 285 McNair, J.F.A. 48 McNeely, J.A. 422 MCP (Malayan Communist Party): see Emergency Mead, J.P. 93, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 149, 151, 152–153, 205–206 Melaka 8, 12, 16, 17, 29, 30, 38, 40, 42, 49, 71, 72, 107, 165, 173, 195, 268, 275, 320, 325, 394; Chief Minister 275 Menon, K.D. 269 n. 41 Menon, Rama 182 Methodist Publishing House 20 n. 51, 115 n. 23, 234 Middle class 154, 292, 293–294, 330, 403–404, 422–423 Miller, Charles 28, 29, 50 n. 12 Miller, Philip 28 Milton, Oliver 289

KWells_index.fm Page 482 Friday, June 17, 2005 3:56 PM

Nature and Nation Ministry / Minister of Primary Industries 278, 310, 315, 326 Mitchell, Charles 201 Mitterrand, Francois 345 MNLA (Malayan National Liberation Army) 241 Mohamad Said, Tan Sri 293 Mohamed Darus Mahmud 314, 395 Mohamed Eusoff, Dato’ Panglima Kinta 248 Mohamed Haniff 15, 16, 17 Mohamed Hussein 16 Mohamed Khan Momin Khan 290, 311, 339 Mohamed Nur Mohamed Ghose 15 Mohamed Sopiee Sheikh Ibrahim 324 Mohammad Harun Talib 273 Mohammad Noor Zainudin 254 Mohammed Idris 366 Mok, S.T. 350 Molesworth Allen, B. 285 Montgomerie, W. 31, 36, 46 Mostafa K. Tolba 319 MOSTE (Ministry of Science Technology and Environment) 271, 312, 315, 322, 327, 366, 405–406; DOE (Department of Environment) 403 MTC (Malaysian Timber Council) 369, 412 n. 89 MTIB (Malaysian Timber Industry Board) 384, 407 Muda Irrigation Scheme: see Kedah Muhammad Jabil 275 Murton, Henry 48 Musa Hitam 326 Museum/s: British Museum (Natural History) 197; collections 192, 197; East India Company 30; FMS 168–169, 179, 197; Forest Research Institute 234; National (Muzium Negara) 285, 287; Perak 16, 61, 168, 169, 171; Raffles 168, 197, 233; research 179; Selangor 168; Tokyo Zoological 234 Myers, Norman 365 Napitupulu B.W.F. 138 National Agricultural Policy 421 National Conservation Strategy 419–420 National Forestry Act 316–317, 329–330, 346, 347, 377, 379, 393, 397, 401 National Forestry Policy 267–268, 277, 311, 312–313, 315–317, 319, 329–330, 344, 405 National Identity xii, 212, 213, 217, 241, 242, 247, 248, 292, 422–423; see also Malay, nationalism National Land Council 267, 313 National Land Use Policy, 265, 273, 281, 286, 309, 314, 315, 316, 338, 345, 346 National Park/s: Advisory Council 344; campaign 203–217; concept 203, 210–211, 213, 215, 284, 317, 338, 342, 344, 345, 392;

•

482

DWNP 311, 344; Hailey (Corbet) 215; IUCN, Fourth Commission for 284; King George V 215–217, 220, 245, 287, 291; Kivu 207, 211, 215; Kruger 211; Kutai 215; tourism 214–215, 291, 311, 327, 329, 337– 339; Wilpattu 215; Yellowstone 211; see also Acts and Ordinances, National Parks Natural science: collections 29, 30, 49, 61, 76, 81, 167, 168, 169, 195, 197, 234, 279; collectors 15, 16, 29, 45, 96, 169; exploration 1, 17, 27–31, 48, 60–61; and social science xxx, 182 Nature: perceptions of xii, xxxiii–xxxiv; Malay/Malaysian perceptions of 1, 10, 11, 208–209, 280–281, 292–294, 418; and national identity xxviii, xxxii 213–214, 216– 217, 229, 281, 285, 325; Western/colonial perceptions of 165–166 NDP (New Development Policy) 394 Nederlandsche Commissie voor Internationale Natuurbescherming 205, 222 n.126 Negeri Sembilan 41, 73, 156, 193, 201, 202, 209, 239; failed harvest 63; forest management 273, 316, 339; fuel and wood 70, 105–106; land degradation 65; Linggi 293; malaria 165; Orang Asli 32, 130, 133, 135; paddy 11, 16; Serting Game Reserve 200, 204; shifting cultivation 38, 177, 242; squatters 246, 269–270; tiger menace 192; wildlife 212, 291, 316; see also NTFP NEP (New Economic Policy) xxix–xxx, 277, 293, 311, 316 Netherlands: Dutch Technical Aid Mission and NEDECO (Netherlands Engineering Consultant) 272; timber trade 383 Netherlands Indies: conservation 222; forestry 43, 170; highland agriculture 244; natural science 23, 28; nature protection 42, 43, 204–207; NTFP export 69, 92, 97, 98; wildlife administration 200, 204–205; wildlife protection 206, 207; wildlife trade 195–196, 200; wood exports 141, 142 New Straits Times 321, 324, 373, 376–377, 394, 405 Newbold, Captain T.J. 40–41, 43 NFC (National Forestry Council) 313, 315, 353, 373, 376, 379, 401–402 Ng, F.S.P. 342, 396 NGOs (Non-governmental environmental organizations): see Environmental movement; Environmental NGOs Niven, David 36 Noakes, D.S.P. 151 Noone, Richard 49 NTCC (National Timber Certification Council) 384 NTFP (Non-timber forest produce) 59, 62, 68, 69, 71, 74, 92, 96–100, 314, 319, 328; bamboo 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 60, 62, 71, 88, 92, 100, 101, 129, 130, 133, 136, 177, 190, 209,

KWells_index.fm Page 483 Friday, June 17, 2005 3:56 PM

Index 235, 241, 243, 247; camphor 7, 10, 12, 14, 44, 90, 131, 232; dammar 13, 14, 45, 88, 92, 94– 98, 101, 102, 131; dragon’s blood (laka) 20 n. 52, 88; eaglewood (gaharu) 10, 12, 45, 47, 55 n. 146, 92, 353; gutta-percha 15, 17, 45, 46, 47, 59, 62, 69–74, 87, 90, 96, 98, 131, 133, 136, 141; jelutong 15, 132, 133, 141, 176, 254, 289; Low Ah Jit, Messers 102; nipa (nipah) 3, 13, 47, 59, 62, 101, 126, 129, 130, 174; petai 12, 130, 131, 134; rattan 8, 13, 14, 39, 44, 45, 59, 62, 1, 98–100, 101, 102, 131, 135, 136, 137, 139, 141, 190, 235, 254, 290, 291; trade and revenue xxix, 58–59, 69–70, 75, 96–102; see also Chinese, NTFP trade and industry; Orang Asli, NTFP trade; Malay, NTFP collection and trade Noone, H.D. 179–182, 249 ODA (Overseas Development Authority), U.K. 286, 318 Oeken Abdoellah 382 Ogilvie, C.S. 291 O’Hara, M.I. 232 Oil palm 143, 197–198, 253, 271, 272, 274, 289, 291, 293, 323, 328, 342, 347, 352, 354, 393, 394 Oliphant, J.N. 105, 108, 109, 112, 175, 176, 181 Ong Kee Hui 310 Onn Ja’afar 248 Onslow, Lord 207, 214 ‘Operation Lalang’ 367 Orang Asli 46,106; adaptation to forest environment 1, 13, 135, 243, 248–249; and animals 190, 192, 197, 289–290, 291; beliefs 10; Christian missionaries among 138; cultivation 7–9; displacement of 115, 125, 130–131, 135, 243, 328, 402–403; during Emergency 239, 241–242, 243; in forest service 16, 93, 130; government policy towards 125, 130–131,135, 138, 143, 172– 174, 178–182, 248–250; guides 129–130, 166–167; hunting 7, 134–135, 192, 194, 196, 311–312; knowledge of biota and forest skills 15, 16, 17, 45, 46, 106, 129–130; land and territorial claims 130, 131, 178, 249, 419; NTFP trade 8, 12, 15, 70–71, 96–97, 99, 100, 101, 130, 131–133, 138, 399, 421–422; relations with Chinese 132–133,138, 180– 182; relations with Game Department 199, 291; relations with Malays 10, 19, 131, 136– 137, 181–182, 242, 248, 291; resistance to encroachment on traditional rights 138– 139, 180; rubber planting 135; swidden 7, 9, 37, 143, 177, 179, 243; taungya 268, 342; see also Forest administration, relations with Orang Asli Orang Asli communities: Batek 182, 291, 327, 354; Benua-Jakun 44, 46; Besisi (Mah Meri) 32, 130, 133; Che Wong 291; Jakun 44, 46,

•

483 190, 291; Proto-Malay 45, 131, 133, 177; Sabimba 44, 47; Semang (Negrito) 9, 130, 135–136, 181; Senoi 47, 131, 136–138, 178, 177–180, 181; Temiar 133, 177, 179–182; Temuan 131, 133–135, 419; see also Aborigines; Orang Asli Orang Selat 173 Ormsby-Gore, W.G.A. 201, 203 Oxley, Thomas 1, 34, 36, 46, 47 Pacific Science Congress 206, 233, 279, 284 Pahang 90; ASPA (Amanah Saham Pahang) 376–377; and Cameron Highlands 159; floods 6, 309; forest conversion 176, 277, 393; forest management, 69, 73, 76, 88; Forest Reserves 89–90, 111; forest restrictions 127; gutta-percha 70; Hulu 12, 64, 128, 176; Janda Baik 402–403; Jelai 6, 128, 198; Jengka Triangle (SJSB) 271–272, 274, 289, 310, 354; Kuala Tahan 176, 216, 327; NFTP 47, 70, 88, 91–92, 97, 98, 101, 102, 130, 131– 132; Orang Asli 131, 137, 139; sawmills 107; Semantan 128; shifting cultivation 46; State Park 245; Tasik Berah 275, 280, 420; Tasik Cini 393, 405; Tekai 70, 129; Telum 137, 180, 244; Tembeling 6, 128–129, 143, 325; Temerluh 139, 176, 190, 245, 247, 255; timber politics and corruption 375–379, 397; timber production 354, 375; uprising/ war 9, 71, 128, 130; ‘village forests’ 127; wood industry 103, 105–106, 107, 108; see also Dam, Tembeling; Endau-Rompin, campaign; Highland Development, Fraser’s Hill, Genting Highlands, Janda Baik Parks: see National Park/s; Wildlife Parks/ Reserves PAS (Parti Islam seMalaysia) 353–354, 380 Pasoh: IBP programme 280, 318 Passfield, Lord (Sidney Webb) 207, 208 Peel, William 204 Penan: see Sarawak Penang: deforestation 39, 41–42, 43; early development 28, 32–36; see also Botanic Gardens, Penang Penghulu: in forest management 44–45, 60, 62, 68, 92, 129, 139, 155, 202 Pepper 8, 13, 14, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 65, 133 Perak 47, 58–68, 107, 108, 130; Batang Padang 17, 130, 177–178, 200, 243; Belum 338; Central Mangrove Cooperative 235– 236; Dindings 60, 65, 74, 91, 236; Larut Hills 61– 62, 142, 150–151; Maxwell’s Hill 156; NTFP trade 88, 131–132, Orang Asli 135– 138, 178; Pangkor Treaty 48, 167; Pelus 137, 198, 200, 242, 268, 289; radioactive waste 367; rhino 194, 197; shifting cultivation 242, 268; State Regional Planning Committee 153–154, 156; Taiping 151, 154, 236; Tapah 130, 131, 157, 159, 177, 268; Teluk Anson 107, 108,

KWells_index.fm Page 484 Friday, June 17, 2005 3:56 PM

Nature and Nation 153; Temengor 135, 137, 190, 191, 238, 326, 338; wood industry under the Japanese 235– 236; see also Kinta; Korbu; Kuala Kangsar; Swamp forests, mangrove Perlis: conflict over water-sharing 269; forest management 142; Schima-bamboo forest 7; Wang Mu State Park 359 n. 70; see also UFMS PFE (Permanent Forest Estate) 278, 346, 418; see also PRF Philippines 95, 108, 169, 174, 175, 349, 373 Pinchot, Gifford 171 Plants: aesthetic value 32, 36, 37; distribution 3–4; medicinal 17, 28, 29, 34, 340–342 Plantations: see Cassava; Gambier; Oil palm; Pepper; Rubber; Timber plantations Poore, Duncan 265, 285, 368–369, 407 Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan: seaside resort 157 Potter, George 34 Potts, James 34 PRF (Permanent Reserved Forest): see Forest Reserves Pritchard, J.C. 182 Pusat Perekonomian Melayu 254 Putz F.E. 394 Raffles, Sir Thomas Stamford 16, 29–31, 33, 34, 35 Railways 69, 72–73, 91, 101, 107, 108, 109, 141 Ramsar Convention 420–421 Rathborne, Ambrose 44, 66, 169, 196 Razali Ismail, Tan Sri, 369, 425 n.26 Reid Commission 248, 267 Resident-General/ Chief Secretary, role in forest management 68, 71, 72, 76, 87, 113 Reynolds, K.P. 200 Richards, P.W. 171, 278 RIDA (Rural Industrial Development Authority) 254, 255 Ridley, H.N. 15, 16, 49, 72, 73, 74, 76 Ritchie, Captain A.T.A. 216 Ritchie, C. 150 River: management 172–173; siltation 41, 154, 171, 178, 210, 231, 238, 354; Silt (Control) Enactment 172, 271, 281, 300; see also Soil, rate of loss Robertson, A.F. 294 Robinson, H.C. 15, 130, 158, 168–169, 170, 179, 197, 198, 310 Rodger, J.P 73, 74 Roosevelt, Franklin 307 Roosevelt, Theodore 171, 199, 307 Roxburgh, William 34 Roxburgh, William Jr. 50 n. 15 Royal Asiatic Society, Straits Branch 167 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew: see Botanic Gardens

•

484

Royal Society 27, 41, 55, 318 Rubber (Hevea brasiliensis): area 142, 149, 150, 197, 342; conflict with forestry 150; and wildlife 135, 197–198, 204, 342; environmental impact of plantations 66, 67, 150, 175, 176, 347; expansion 44, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 76, 98, 101, 102, 103, 104, 131, 135, 142, 143, 149, 150, 152, 155, 170, 197, 198, 204, 230, 231, 242, 253, 289, 352, 354; planting and air pollution 68; planting in forest reserves 135; planting and wood wastage 9, 150; replanting 109; restriction 90, 102, 109, 150; RGS (Rubber Growers’ Association) 202, 203; RRI (Rubber Research Institute) 175, 232, 285; smallholdings 66–67, 148, 186; wood 109, 347 Ruler/s and royalty: grants and concessions by 139, 140, 141, 147 n. 116, 320, 353, 355, 375, 376; monopolies 10, 12, 14, 44, 47, 70, 125, 141, 192; powers/ influence of, 8, 10, 12, 14, 38, 44–45, 47, 59, 62, 88, 112, 113, 125, 126, 139, 141, 168, 179, 196, 204, 212, 215, 246, 248, 320, 375, 376, 415; Raja Abdul Jalil bin Sultan Idris (Perak) 200; Raja Kamaralzaman bin Raja Mansur (Perak) 153; Temenggung Ibrahim (Johor) 38, 44, 45, 47; Tengku Besar (Pahang) 255; Tengku Mahkota (Pahang) 375; Yang di-Pertuan (Negeri Sembilan) 204; Yang di-Pertuan Agung (Malaysia) 285; see also Sultan Rumpf, G.E. (Rumphius) 28 Rural development: impact on forests 270– 278, 285, 289, 290, 309, 312, 319, 320, 322, 323, 329, 354–355, 372–373, 416, 421; policy 267–268; see also development agencies in individual States Ryves, V.W. 198, 211 Sabah 275, 349, 381, 398; Danum Valley 318 Salim, Emil 365, 369 Salleh Mohd Nor 401, 402 Salt licks 12, 190, 197, 200, 202, 289, 290, 291, 339 Samuels, G. 168 Samy Velu 403 Sanderson, G.P. 193 Sanger-Davies, A. 91, 93 Sarawak 275, 349, 381; Dulit 171–172; Calophyllum lanigerum and HIV 341; Penan 318, 367–368 Sayer, J. 372, 395 Sayid Hussain Al-Aidid 35 Schebesta, Paul 181 Schimper, Andreas 171 Schlich, William 93, 171 Scortechini, Father Benedetto 61 Scott, A.L.M. 73 Scott, James 33, 34, 35 Secrett, Charles 366, 392

KWells_index.fm Page 485 Friday, June 17, 2005 3:56 PM

Index Selangor: Batu Caves 190, 285; Bernam peat forest 107; Bukit Legung catchment clearance 244; camphor stands 7; dammar collection 91; forest management 73, 88, 91, 127; forest management during Japanese Occupation 232, 234, 235; Forest Reserves 66, 111, 112; Hulu Gombak Forest Reserve 151; Hulu Langat 133, 135; hunting and impact on wildlife 192, 194, 196, 197, 200; Kancing 232; Kelang Valley 419; Kuala Kubu 154, 157, 419; Kuala Kubu Baharu 131, 154 419; land degradation 62; mangroves 91, 104, 173–174; Orang Asli 131, 133–134, 135, 180, 190, 194; Pulau Ketam 173; Pulau Lumut 173; reforestation 71; Selangor Journal 168; shifting cultivation 64, 65, 102, 176, 231, 242; Sungai Selangor Dam 419; Templer Park 285; water crisis 405, 418–419, 424 n. 21; wildlife 190, 191, 195, 196, 198; wood imports 75, 108, 112; see also Museum, Selangor SEPU (State Economic Planning Unit) 352– 353, 355 Shafruddin, B.H. 324 Shahnon Ahmad: No Harvest but a Thorn 14, 292–293; Kesasterawan Kepolitikan … 293 Shebbeare, E.O. 216 Shifting cultivation 7, 8, 13, 37–39, 41, 61–65, 92, 105, 112, 127, 128, 135, 137, 139, 140, 165, 176–179, 180, 181, 242, 243, 245, 249, 268; and animals 190–192, 197, 291; curbs on 92, 139, 140, 197; and land degradation 150, 176 Shrubshall, E.J. 288 Simandjuntak, B. xii Simmons, J.A.W. 204 Singapore: development, 28, 32, 36–39, 42; gutta-percha 45–48, 69; mangroves 173; Natural History Society 216–217; NTFP trade 96, 97, 98, 100, 102, 107, 131, 139, 141, 242; saw-milling industry 107,142; Singapore Naturalist 217; tigers 191; timber trade 142, 252, 275, 352; wildlife loss 191, 287; wildlife trade 192, 201, 202, 206; see also Botanic Gardens, Singapore; Bukit Timah; Museum, Raffles; Ridley Skeat, W.W. 15, 131, 181 Skinner, A.M.167 Smith, Sir Cecil Clementi 49 Smith, Christopher 34 Smith, Cuthbert 151, 153–154 Smith, Elliot 206 Smith, J.S. 175, 279 Smith, Captain Robert 35, 39 Snow, C.P. xxx Sodium arsenite: use of, 109, 284, 289 Soemarwoto, Otto 382 Soil conservation: 175–176, 281, 309; erosion 2, 6, 7, 39, 40, 44, 66, 67, 71, 103, 149–150, 157, 165, 172, 173, 175, 177, 178, 232, 238,

•

485 242, 251, 279, 280, 281,304, 310, 329, 348, 354; Imperial Bureau of Soil Science 172, 175; rate of loss 244, 329; see also Land, degradation Species: laws for protection of 170, 195, 196, 198, 200, 202, 205, 288, 311, 344; loss/protection 27, 31, 68, 69, 88, 98, 102, 196, 201, 203, 205, 206, 207, 284, 288, 289, 291, 311, 312, 318, 319, 339, 340, 343, 396–397; threatened 30, 49, 71, 72, 189, 196, 200, 202, 203, 292, 319, 328; ‘unwanted’ 74, 91, 114, 169, 280, 350 Spencer, Herbert 171 SPFE (Society for the Preservation of Fauna of the Empire) 201, 204, 207, 210, 214, 215– 216 Squatters 180, 229, 236, 239, 240, 242–243, 244, 248, 268–270; see also Shifting cultivation Srivijaya 11 Stamp, L.A. 283 State Conservation Strategies 320, 352 State Council: forest affairs 89, 113, 150, 204 State Executive Committee (State Exco) 325, 353, 355 State Parks 285, 317, 324, 344–345 State power: in forest management 276–277, 347, 353, 373–374, 408; see also Federal– State relations Stebbing, E.B. 94 Stephens, A.B. 73, 74 Stevens, W.E. 289, 291, 311, 338 Stone, B.C. 292 Straits Settlements: composition 49 n. 2; forest administration 49, 71, 72, 74, 75–76; wildlife 195; wood consumption 103; see also Melaka; Penang; Singapore Straits Times 154, 173, 210, 212, 254 Strong, Maurice 312, 317 Strong, T.A. 178, 251 Sultan: Abu Bakar195; Ahmad (Melaka) 12; Azlan Shah (Perak) 403; Husain (Muar) 44; Ibrahim (Johor) 142–143, 200, 233; Idris (Perak) 131, 136; Iskandar Muda (Aceh) 8; of Kelantan 141; Muzaffar (Perak) 14; of Pahang 375; of Selangor 285; Zainal Abidin III (Terengganu) 139 Sumatra 16, 28, 29, 31, 46, 47; elephants 203–204; wood supplies 103; see also Benkulen Sun 404 Sundram, S.T. 322 Swamp forests: freshwater 3, 7–8, 13, 40, 71, 141, 142, 154, 156, 250, 270, 393, 395; mangrove 3, 13, 14, 39, 60, 63, 65–66, 71, 74, 91, 104, 106, 116 n. 37, 126, 173, 174, 235, 236, 255, 270, 393 Swettenham, Sir Frank 61, 62, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 167 Swettenham, J.A. 73

KWells_index.fm Page 486 Friday, June 17, 2005 3:56 PM

Nature and Nation Swidden: see shifting cultivation Syers, Captain H.C. 168, 193, 194 Symington, C.F. 105, 170, 234, 279 Tahan: Game Reserve 200, 203, 208, 210, 216; Gunung 156, 182, 217, 246–247; Kuala 171, 176, 216, 327; Sungai 136, 176, 325; see also Taman Negara Taib Mahmud 310 Taiwan: timber imports 275, 344, 352 Taman Negara 328, 329, 339, 344; biological diversity 325; jeep track 327; logging in 379; threat to 325–327; see also National Park/s, King George V Tanakadate, Hidezo 233–234 Tansley, A. G. 169, 171 Tassim Daud 15 Technical and scientific services 288; Department of Agriculture 98, 232, 284; DOE (Department of Environment) 403; Drainage and Irrigation Department 185 n. 65, 270; Science Bureau, proposed 174–175; see also Forest Department; Forestry institutes, FRI/ FRIM; Game/ DWNP; Museums; Rubber, RRI Templer, Sir Gerald 285 Terengganu 70, 130, Concession for King George V National Park 203, 207, 210, 211; development and timber boom 235, 269, 271, 272, 274, 323, 352–353, 373–374, 394; Dungun 70, 352, 399; early timber industry 140; forest admin-istration 139–141, 237– 238; forest laws 139; GTZ project 399; Hulu 143, 177, 240, 290; Kemaman 70, 140, 147 n. 116, 237, 253–254; Ketengah, 352–353; KPKKT (Kumpulan Pengurusan Kayu-Kayan Terengganu) 398–399; NTFP 353, 399; recreation forest 339, 418; rural development 271; shifting cultivation 177; State Conservation Strategy 320, 352; study of logging impact 292; timber production 203, 207, 210, 211, 347, 353, 354; uprising 140; wildlife 196, 200; wildlife trade 202; lso Dam, Kenyir; National Park, King George, V UFMS TFAP (Tropical Forest Action Plan) 345, 346, 349, 382 TFTAAP (Tropical Forest Timber Agreement and Action Plan) 368 Thailand: and the northern Malay States 155, 201, 237; timber exports to 373; wood imports from 141 Thiselton-Dyer,W. 71–74 Thomas, Sir Shenton 215 Thomson, J.T. 39 Thoreau, Henry 171 Timber: certification 383–384, 392, 399, 407, 408; concessions and licences 75, 107, 140, 254, 255, 322, 353, 355, 375–377; depletion 43, 61, 169, 313, 322; levies and prices 92, 140, 237, 278, 346, 375–376, 398, 401, 402,

•

486

406; loss from forest burning 7–8, 39, 66, 75, 90, 150, 173, 176, 177, 323; MC&I (Malaysian Criteria and Indicators) 390 n. 151, 399; politics 372–373, 375–377, 406–407; production 71–75, 89, 104–106, 108–109, 110–111. 114, 141, 142, 236, 237, 251, 255, 265–267, 270–276, 289, 309, 313–317, 346– 352, 346–352, 254–355; from temperate forests 382; TEAM (Timber Exporters Association, Malaysia) 383, 407; trade and export 32, 105–108, 111, 229, 252, 266, 274– 275, 309, 320, 322, 324, 344, 346, 348–349, 381, 382–383; see also Rulers, grants and concessions by; Wood Timber industry 105–108, 235–238, 251–253, 273–274, 275, 277, 348, 381, 394, 406; ASPA (Amanah Saham Pahang) 376, 377; Hin Leong Co. 140–141, 237; impact on forests 249, 266; Integrated Timber Complexes 348, 354, 376, 398–399 Timber plantations 346–347, 352, 374 Times of Malaya 173, 174, 208 Tin industry: conflict with forestry 151–156; land degradation 14–15, 61–62, 152, 154– 155, 173; restriction of production 109, 152; water catchments for 57; wood consumption 59, 62–63, 72, 91, 152, 190–191; see also Chinese, mining and wood consumption; Fermor Tokugawa, Marquis Yashichika 233, 234 Tomoyuki, General Yamashita 233 Tourism: see National Park/s, concept TPA (Totally Protected Areas) 314, 317, 318, 337, 355, 392–393, 418; social values of 151, 154–157, 189, 294, 315–316, 418; see also National Park/s; VJR; Wildlife Parks/ Reserves Treacher, W.H. 70, 72, 74 Tsuji, Y. 234 Tweedie, M.W.F. 234 UFMS (Unfederated Malay States) 108, 113, 139–142, 143; forest reservation 156; game laws 201, 207; transfer to British protection 113, 213; wildlife administration 213; wildlife exports 201; wood consumption 103– 104; wood supplies to FMS 90, 104, 108, 139 UMNO (United Malays National Organization) 248, 254, 269, 321, 324, 353–354, 375, 376, 380 UN (United Nations) 319, 368, 371 UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) 365, 371, 381, 382; see also Earth Summit UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) 276–277, 345, 349, 350 UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) 280, 312, 317, 318, 319, 345, 369 UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Social and Cultural Organization) 279, 280,

KWells_index.fm Page 487 Friday, June 17, 2005 3:56 PM

Index 281, 283, 284, 288, 309, 317, 318; environmental meetings/workshops 284–285, 317 UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) 422 United Kingdom: environmental movement 308; timber imports 108, 252, 366, 368, 370; wildlife imports 344; see also Botanic Gardens, Kew; Forestry institutes University of Malaya 304 n. 264, 336 n. 163, 325; University of Malaya–Aberdeen University Biological Programme 280 Urbanization xxxii, 275, 293, 294, 319, 339, 405, 422–423; and urban development 402– 405 USA: Bureau of Soils 172; conservation movement 42, 165, 172; environmental degradation 170–173; land use 281; New Deal 172, 307–308; parks 207; Tennessee Valley Authority 281, 307; and tropical forests and timber 369, 370, 382; wildlife imports 344; wood consumption 103, 349 Utusan Malaysia 325, 403 Van Steenis, C.G.G.J. 76, 287 Vernay, A.S. 197 Vincent, J.R. 397 ‘Vision 2020’, 394, 419 VJR (Virgin Jungle Reserves) 392, 393–394 Vleiland, C.A. 198 Wallace, A.R. 15, 38, 415 Wallich, Nathaniel 28, 31, 34 Walker, R.S.F. 92 Walton, A.B. 266 Ward, Nathaniel 34 Warming, Eugene (Eugenius) 171 Wataru, Colonel Watanabe 233 Water: crises 404, 418–419, 424 n. 21; pollution 72, 156, 272, 325, 404, 405; threat to supply 270, 275, 395; see also River, siltation Watson, J.G. 97, 151, 152, 154, 173–175, 250– 251 WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) 345–346 WCFSD (World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development) 407 WCS (World Conservation Strategy) 318, 319, 320, 345 Weber, Bruce 291 Wellesley, Marquis of 27, 30

•

487 Wellington, A.R. 157 Wells, Carveth 166, 167 Wells, H.G. 211 Wheeler, L.R. 282, 283 Whitmore, T.C. 279 WHO (World Health Organization) 341 WIAP (Wetlands International Asia Pacific) 393 Wild Life Commission 208–209, 212 Wildlife: and Empire 214; legislation 288, 311–312, 316, 343, 344; poaching 212, 292; trade 8, 192, 195–196, 200–201, 202, 206, 212, 343–344; see also Animals; Game Department/ DWNP; Hubback and wildlife controversy Wildlife Parks/Reserves 311, 319–320, 329, 338–339, 392, 417; see also Game Reserves; Taman Negara; State Parks Wilkinson, G. 95 Wilkinson, R.J. 15 Williams-Hunt, P.D.R. 248 Willingdon, Lord 215 Wilson, E.O. 337, 350 Wilson, Sir Samuel 213; Report 113 Winstedt, R.O. 15, 282 Wong Yeon Chai 375–376 Wong Yew Kuan 285 Wood, Charles 43 Wood: consumption 37, 38, 59, 62–65, 69, 72–75, 90–91, 103–104, 106, 109, 110, 141, 143, 149, 236, 238, 345–346; see also Timber, production World Bank 270, 271, 272, 274, 314, 326, 345, 369, 373, 374 World Congress on National Parks 338 Wray, Leonard 16, 61, 156, 169, 170, 187 n. 120 WRI (World Resource Institute) 345 WTO (World Trade Organization) 407 WWF (World Wildlife Fund/World Wide Fund for Nature) 318, 341, 366, 368, 370, 382 Wyatt-Smith, J. 285, 292, 395, 397 Wycherley, P.R. 285, 286 Yong, Stephen 312, 316, 366 Young, Sir Arthur 156 Young, David 240 Zoological Society of London 201

KWells_index.fm Page 488 Friday, June 17, 2005 3:56 PM