repo.komazawa-u.ac.jprepo.komazawa-u.ac.jp/opac/repository/all/16618/kci009-05-nagataju… ·...

Coconuts, Smallholders, and the Ethnic Mosaic:Some Observations on Land Ownership and

Land Use in Mukim Sungai Punggor,

Johor, Malaysia

Junji NAGATA*

I. Introduction

In peninsular Malaysia it is after the mid-nineteenth century that the large-scale develop-ment of commercial agriculture and the miningindustry in the resource frontier brought about a

massive influx of people of various socioeconomicand ethnic backgrounds. During this relativelyshort period the human habitat in peninsular Ma-laysia has been expanded conspicuously. There-

fore to explain the dynamics of Malaysian society

by using the concept of "frontier society" which is

defined as a distinctive sociocultural typet) is rel-evant, challenging and worthwhile work. Espe-

cially the state of Johor, where a great amount ofagricultural land has been developed by spontane-ous pioneering of smallholders and planters

during the colonial period and by planned settle-ment in the post-independence period, and whichhas been recently drawn into the vortex of therapid industrial development, should provide a

good example of a "frontier society". The case

study from Johor on the changing socioeconomyrelated to the exploitation of the resource frontierwill not only give us additional information abouta part of peninsular Malaysia which has attractedrelatively less attention from scholars compared

to the areas of former Federated Malay States butalso contribute to widen and deepen the under-standing of Malaysian society from the viewpointof "frontier society".

The author is now proceeding with field re-search focusing on a local society in a rural areaand the people appearing on that scene. Theanalyses are centered upon explaining the rise andfall of social standing and the related accumula-tion and distribution of economic wealth amongthe people, with special reference to their access

to the resources and use of them, particularly

land. A variety of factors which may restrictaccess to resources and their use such as ecologi-

cal, technical, economic, sociocultural, ethnic,political, and institutional factors will be takeninto appropriate consideration. The area whichwas selected as a research site is Mukim SungaiPunggor, Batu Pahat district, the State of Johor(Fig. 1). It is situated in the lowland of western

Johor along the Straits of Malacca and forms a

part of the hinterland of Rengit town (Pekan

Rengit). The area of this mukim is 88.06 km2, thepopulation 9,395 and the number of households

1,968 according to the 1991 census. This paper

deals with some essential facts and importantissues concerning access to the land and its use inMukim Sg. (Sungai) Punggor based on data de-

rived from land titles and other documentarysources and field survey.

II. Land Development and Alienation-TheEstablishment of Smallholding Area

Mukim Sg. Punggor stretches from coastlineto inland for about 20 km (Fig. 2). Most of theland was reclaimed from mangrove forest beforethe Second World War except for the deep peat

land in the northeastern part which was devel-

oped from peat swamp forest in the postwarperiod. Along with this agricultural land develop-

ment, most of the land in Mukim Sg. Punggorwas divided into numerous small lots, and th-rough the alienation, which is completed by regis-

tration of title, the right over the land was handedfrom the state to the individual person named inthe title. In Mukim Sg. Punggor the alienation ofland began in 1929 and up to 1993 it amounted to19,668.8 acres (79.59 km2). The area of MukimSg. Punggor is 88.06 km', therefore gOVo of theland in this mukim has already been alienated.The remaining lOVo is State land but most of ithas already been developed to agricultural land.

* Junior Lecturer, Department of Human Geography, The University of Tokyo.

43

Some parts of the State land are reserves for road,drains, coastal and riverside bank, school,mosque, graveyard, government office, and otherpublic purposes.

Table I summarizes the land alienation inMukim Sg. Punggor.2) In this mukim all the landis classified as country land, and there is no areadeclared to be town (bandar) or village (pekan)land by the State. Out of the land alienated inMukim Sg. Punggot, 6l.4Vo was alienated in theprewar colonial period, 3.9Vo in Japanese occupa-tion period, 7.8Vo in the postwar colonial period,and 26.9Vo in the post-independence period. Dur-ing the colonial period the land was mainly alien-ated under EMR (Extract from the Mukim Regi-ster) and in the post-independence period mainlyunder QT(M) (Qualified Title (Mukim)). BothEMR and QT(M), together with MG (MukimGrant) , are categorized as Land Office titleswhich are given to any lot of country land notexceeding ten acres. The land held under Regis-try titles such as Grant or QT(R) (Qualified Title(Registry)), which are given to any lot of countryland exceeding ten acres, is negligible in thismukim, and almost all the titles have been regis-

Regional Views No. 9 1996

Fig. 1. State of Johor and the study area

tered and held under the name of an individualperson. These facts indicate the land of MukimSg. Punggor has been developed and held exclu-sively by smallholders, not by plantation ormining companies or government agencies.

EMR, Grant, and MG are final titles which canbe registered after the final survey is completed.The alienated land under these titles approximate-ly corresponds to the land which was developedbefore the Second World War and already sur-veyed. On the other hand QT(M) and QT(R)are qualified titles which can be prepared based onthe provisional survey. Although 9Vo of thealienated land under QT(M) and all of the alien-ated land under QT(R) are situated in the alreadysurveyed area which was developed before theSecond World War, most of the land under QT(M) occupies the northeastern part of Mukim Sg.

Punggor which was developed after the SecondWorld War and the final survey has yet to be

completed. One more area where the alienatedland under QT(M) is concentrated is the coastalfringe outside the main bank. For all the QT(M)in Mukim Sg. Punggor which were registered upto 1985 the conversion to MG in the future is

・A O周

ざ副

４１十１

Muar

日IntCrnational Boundary

日StatC BOundary

日District Boundary

匿 ∃Railway

□Main Road

困帥∝

Batu Pahat

Senggarang

Mttm鷲記ポ淵

/＼RB長

れ%ぇ Aycr説

|

% Pontian Kecil

□ 師前 ?Ψ η TT平黎測

|

一- 44 -一

Coconuts, Smallholders, and Ethnic Mosaic (Nagata)

Fig. 2. Rengit area (the early 1970s)

Source: Prepared by the author based on "Peta Topografi, Siri L 7OlO",Senggarang (1971), and Yong Peng (1976).

45

Regional Views No.9 1996

Table l. Land alienation in Mukiln Sg.Punggor

(acre)

Year EMR Grant MG QT(M) QT(D) Total

1929-1941

1942-1945

1946-1956

1957-1993

Prewar colonial period 11,710.7 364.8

Japanese occupation period 766.3

Postwar colonial period 1,529.7

Post-independence period 367 .4 79.2 4,803.1

12,075.6 (61.4)

766。 3 (3.9)

1,529。 7 (7.8)

47.5 5,297.3 (26.9)

Total

%14,374。 2

(73.1)

364.8 79。 2 4,803.1

(1・ 9) (004) (24.4)

47.5 19,668。 8 (100.0)

(0.2) (100・ 0)

Source: The author's survey of land titles.

assured. However, starting with 2 lots in 1986,

for the QT(M) which was registered from 1987

onwards for the newly developed land outside thesurveyed area the future conversion to ML(Mukim Lease) for a term of 99 years has cometo be ensured due to the change of governmentpolicy. The latter accounts for 32Vo of the alien-ated land under QT(M).

Although the right over the land was passed

from the State to the individual officially throughland alienation which was completed by registra-tion of title, normally it took some time to preparethe title after the land had actually been devel-oped. In Mukim Sg. Punggor the registration ofland title began in 1929, but if we look at the yearwhen application was approved,3) it dates back to1992 (Fig. 3). The registration of final titles,mostly EMR, rose to a peak in 1931 and 1937 andtowards early 1940s was very active. In theJapanese occupation (1942-1945) and the post-war period we can also see some amount of

registration of final titles. On the other hand theapproval of application for final titles rose to a

peak in 1925,1930, and 1933. After a steep rise in1933 it became stagnant, and during the Japanese

occupation period no application was approved.As to the land which was developed before theSecond World War in Mukim Sg. Punggor, mostof the applications for land titles had been ap-proved from the middle of the 1920s towards theearly 1930s. We can recognize the gap betweenthe approval of applications and the registrationof titles for about fi.ve years.

What is important here is that in advance ofland alienation, agricultural production had al-ready been started, and also land transactions hadoccurred as some records preceding land titlessuch as DP (Daftar Permohnan Tanah Yang-

Telah Dibenarkan), AO (Register of ApprovedOccupants), and SS (Szrat Semantara) indicate.DP is a register of approved application whichappears from 1922 to 1937 in Mukim Sg. Pung-

ｏ““０』０く

組 Ю

31Ю

3硼

21X)

2(XЮ

1500

lⅨЮ

獅

0

一‐‐‐‐‐‐＝‐‐‐＝‐‐‐二　．山　　Ｏｆａ　　一‐‐‐＝‐‐‐＝＝ヽ一

百１１１・―．――　・―‐．―‐‐―一‐ｉｅｒ　椰１　一‐‐ＩＩＩ梓―、ピ

〇“Ｑ［

ｎＮＱ】

」　ＯＮい［

晨

】

η∞い日

〇∞Ｑ】

η卜Ｑ［

〇卜い［

ηつい〓

〇つい［

ηηＱ】

Ｖ．

ＯηＱ［

η寸い】

〇寸い】

η∞Ｑ【

Fig. 3. Land alienation and approyal of application for land in Mukim Sg. PunggorSource: The author's survey of land titles.

一- 46 -―


Table 2. Estimated years of land development in Mukim Sg. Punggor(acre)

Year of approval of application for land in DPEstimated years of land development

1925-1929 1930-1937

1905-1909

1910-1941

1915-1919

1920-1924

1925-1929

1930-1937

162.4

386.1

817.1

856。 1

295。 7

0。0

(6.5)

(15.3)

(32.5)

(34.0)

(H.7)

(000)

0。0

50.8

281.1

853.9

2,987.2

1,906.4

(0・ 0)

(0.8)

(4.6)

(14.0)

(49。 1)

(31。 4)

Subtotal 2,517.4 (1∞・0) 6,079.3 (1∞・0)

unknown 1,284.3 (33.8) 1,690.8 (21.8)

Total 3,801.7 (100.0) 7,770.1 (10000)

Source: The author's survey of DP (Dafter Permohnan Tanah Yang-Telah Dibenarkan).

gor, and it contains information about the crops,and their ages, cultivated on the land concerned.Although some of the books of DP are lost and innot a few cases there is no description about thecrops and their ages, we can estimate when theland was opened actually and crops planted inMukim Sg. Punggor (Table 2). On the land forwhich application was approved between 1925

and 1929, the crops, mainly coconut, were plan-

ted as early as the latter half of 1900s in someparts and from the latter half of the 1910s to thefirst half of the 1920s extensively. As to the landfor which application was approved between 1930

and L937, crops were planted in the 1910s in someparts and mainly from the latter half of 1920s tothe early 1930s. These facts are consistent withthe oral information which was collected fromvillage informants, that as early as the 1900s

coconut had already been planted in this mukim,and some of the tall coconut trees have reachedalmost 100 years old.

Those whose names had been recorded in DPor AO are not considered to be proprietors butonly officially approved applicants. In AO whichwas registered after the Second World War, andin DP, transfers were not recorded, but transfersof the right to registration of titles actually hap-pened by way of assignment of approval from aformer approved applicant to a new approvedapplicant. In this case the former DP or AO werecancelled and replaced by the new ones. SS

literally means "temporary letter", and was issued

after application was approved in DP. It appears

from 1922 to 1928 in Mukim Sg. Punggor andwas used until final title was registered. In this SS

and AO which was registered before the Second

World War not a few transfers were recorded.These facts indicate that before the title was finalyprepared land transactions had already actuallytaken place.

This section summarizes the establishment ofsmallholding area in Mukim Sg. Punggor based

on the data derived especially from the land titlesand other related documents. In short, the agri-cultural land development in Mukim Sg. Punggorhad begun as early as the 1900s, and through the1910s, 1920s, and early 1930s most of the landwas opened up and planted with coconuts exceptfor the deep peat land of the northeast which was

developed in the post-war period. For the landwhich was developed by the early 1930s the appli-cation for the title was approved from the middleof 1920s to the early 1930s and most of the landwas alienated through the registration of landtitles by the early 1940s.

III. Land Use l-The Emergence of Coco-nut Growing Area

The land use in Rengit area which includesMukim Sg. Punggora) was dominated by coconutby the early 1980s. Other than coconut, some

areca-nut (pinang) and coffee were planted, butrubber was rare in this area (Fig. a). In lowlandJohor along the Straits of Malacca coconut was

grown as a commercial crop, not as a componentof "kampung" cultivation,s) but most coconutgrowing area was concentrated on the coastalzone. The areas where coconut was dominant15-20 km to the inland could only be seen nearRengit area and near the border of Batu Pahatand Muar districts. The coconut dominancy inRengit area contrasted sharply with the adjoining

一- 47 -T


Fig. 4. Distribution of coconut, rubber, and oil palm in western Johor in 1984

Source: Prepared by the author based on "Penggunaan Tanah 1984 Johor Darul Takzim"(Department of Agriculture, Peninsular Malaysia).

areas, that is, Senggarang area on the west andBenut area on the east, where the ecological con-ditions seemed to be similar to Rengit area butrubber was dominant except for the coconut-dominant coastal zone.

In Ren git area it seems reasonable to supposethat coconut had been dominant from the begin-ning of agricultural pioneering. Table 3 showsthe land use which appears in the land titles ofMukim Sg. Punggor at the time of registrationand in 1993. If we look at the land use at the timeof registration of EMR which was mainly madein 1930s, the land planted solely with coconutaccounts for as much as 93.2Vo, and if landplanted with coconut together with other crops is

added, the coconut growin g area reaches 98Vo ofthe total land. Although information about landuse at the time of application from the middle ofthe 1920s to the early 1930s is not fully available,as far as I look at the land use which appears insome DP, there is no room for doubt about theleading position of coconut in Rengit area.

The question now arises: why the pioneer set-

tlers chose coconut, not rubber. One of theimportant factors which affects the land use inRengit area is the historical timing of agriculturalland development. As I have already discussed inchapter II, agricultural land development inMukim Sg. Punggor began as early as the 1900s,

but most of the land except for the deep peat landin the northeast was developed in earnest fromthe latter half of the 1910s to the early 1930s.

After the rubber boom around 1910 rubber pricesdropped sharply and continued to be stagnanttowards the 1920s with some sporadic modestrecoveries. After 1918 the Johor governmentrestricted the alienation of new land for rubbercultivation by smallholders and maintained thisrestrictive policy through the 1920s with someintermittent relaxations for a short period andfinally decided to ban all the alienation of newland for rubber cultivation in 1930 during theGreat Depression (Oh, 1993). In Mukim Sg.

Punggor on 92.3Vo of the land alienated underEMR the conditions which prohibited rubber cul-tivation such as "No Rubber" or "No Rubber, oil

Rengit

Coconut

Rubber

Oil Palm

StArt, ofrVuh""u

Pontian Kecil

や二― 0 5 10 15 20 25

District Boundary

-Km

NV

48


Table 3. Land use which appears in the land titles in Mukim Sg. Punggor(acre (Vo))

Land use EMR (Regis.) EMR (lee3) QT(M) (Regis.) Qr(M) (lee3)

CoconutsCoconuts & Pinang (areca-nut)Coconuts & CoffeeCoconuts & RubberCoconuts & Pinang (areca-nut) & CoffeeCoconuts & NipahCoconuts & Belukar (secondary forest)Coconuts & Tobacco

Coconuts & Padi (paddy)Coconuts & Sayor (vegetable)

Coconuts & Jungle LandCoconuts & Ubi (root crops) &

Sayor (vegetable)

Coconuts & Pisang (banana)Coconuts & Sayor (vegetable) & TobaccoCoconuts & Nipah & Pinang (areca-nut)Coconuts & CikuRubberPinang (areca-nut)Pinang (areca-nut) & Padi (paddy)Kebon (garden) mixed cultivationNipahBelom Tanam (not yet planted)/

Kosong (vacant)

Oil palmOil palm & CoffeePineappleBuildingLight industriesNot specified

13,ω l.7(93.2)462.5 (3.2)

66.2 (0.5)

64.7 (0。 4)

57.2 (0.4)

47.6 (0.3)

38.1 (0.3)

10。 6 (0.1)

10.4 (0。 1)

9.8 (0.1)

9。 7 (0.1)

5。 7 (0.0)

12,055.6

479。 9

55。 8

58。 0

68.4

30.4

14.8

9.5

10。 3

9。4

9.6

5.0

(86.8) 4262.7 (88。 7) 4161.0 (87.4)

(3.5)

(0.4)

0。4)

0.5)

0.2)

0.1)

0。 1)

0.1)

0.1)

1001)

0。 0)

5.6

5.0

3.6

3.5

102.2

38.3

9。 3

3。 4

1.4

7.5

10。4

0。0)

0。 0)

0.0)

0。 0)

0。 7)

0.3)

0.1)

0。 0)

0。 0)

0。 1)

733.4

19.7

1.8

(0。 1) 150。 2

5.0 (0.0)

3.2 (0.0)

3.5 (0.0)

89.4 (0.6)

32.0 (0.2)

9。 3 (0。 1)

26.1 (0.2)

0.7 (0。 0)

0.4 (0。 0)

17.5 (0.4)

14。 7 (0。 3)

7.8 (0.2)

4.9

(0。 3)

(001)

(5。 3) 201.1 (4.2) 296.4 (6.2)

3.5 (0.1) 3.5 (0.1)

5.6 (0。 1) 5。 6 (0.1)

(0・ 1) 100 (0・ 0) 100 (0・0)

(000)

(1。 1) 289.3 (6.0) 274。 4 (5.8)

Total 14,374.2 (100。 0) 13,881。 4 (100.0) 4,803.1(10000) 4,762.6 (100。 0)

(Regis. : Registration)(acre)

Land use Grant (R) Grant (e3) MG (R) MG (e3) Qr(D) (R) QT(D) (e3)

CoconutsKebon (garden) mixed cultivationOil palmNot specified 364.8

76.6

281.9

16.9

3.0

59。4

16.1

3.0

59。0

47.5 23.7

23.7

Total 364.8 358.5 79。 2 78.1 47.5 47.5

(R : Registration, 93: 1993)


palm, tapioca, pineapple" were imposed at thetime of registration,o) while there are no suchconditions on 7.6% of the alienated land underEMR (Table 4).')

In adjoining Senggarang area where ecologicalconditions were similar but rubber was dominantexcept for the coastal zone, the land was devel-oped earlier than the Ren git area. Table 5 shows

the registration of SS in Mukim Kg. (Kampong)Bahru which occupies the eastern half of Senggar-

ang area and in two mukim which comprisesRengit area, that is Mukim Sg. Punggor andMukim Sg. Kluang.s) As I have already mention-€d, SS was registered after the application was

approved and was used until the final title wasprepared. In Mukim Kg. Bahru SS had already

一- 49 -一

ぁ“】Ｑ

」〇

∽０目】〓

、目“

０∽】“』

〇一

．Ｃ〇一∽〇】０

一目０＞０』Ｑ

〇一∽０』”∽“０目】０〓“一〇一■０』一５げ０】

∽・【一Ｈ

．∽０】一】一●〓“【」Ｏ

、０＞』●∽∽

・』〇〓一●“

０〓』ヽ

０̈０』●〇∽

●ｏ↓一０一月〇』Ｑ

∽】一Ｈ　．寸　．〓Ｃ“Ｏ

Ｏ〓一０＞』０∽０』Ｑ

Ｏ一●ｏ』】●げ０』

∽】一Ｈ　．め

。Ｎ　．Ｏ〇一■●〓

∽】“目】０〓”０

』〇嘔

■０∽●

００

Ｃ“０

〓０一〓≧

“ｏ】“

ｏ〓』」

．】

”∽０一ＯＺ

（駅

２

＝

駅

ごｏ一一四

∽゙““ｏ“

＝

“）

い。卜

寸

い。卜

寸

】。∞ト

べ。いト

い。∞い“

∞。寸

つめ

【“一〇ト

卜．めＮ

卜．めＮ

い。卜

寸

寸。

い

つ。

いい

】．寸】

〇．“

寺。

い

い。

「い

い。∞

】

〇．“

つ。つ

卜【

】．〇つ

寸。

い】

〇．めい

“．∞崎

い。∞

いＮ

つ。

い】

】。卜

寸

寸．め寸

ＯＯ嘔

・【００Ｑ∽一〇Ｚ

】⊥‐ＣＯ

・】∽∽■●】ｏＱ

〓↓てＦ

∽ＱＯ』０

】Ｏ〓゛〇

（口出“Ｑ

【】Ｏ

、【目〇

寸

Ｎ^

へ】上‐　口〇】∽∽■●】ＯＱ

〓゛てＦ

∽ＱＯ】０

】０〓一〇

∽^一”口００００

、【目〇

口^出“Ｑ

【】Ｏ

へ】００つ”』

ＯＺ

Ｎ上丁目〇】∽∽■螢】ＯＱ

一●〇〓一てＦ

』ＯＱＱＯＱ

へ“ＯＯ】Ｑ“一

へ０【ＱＱ“０口】ａ

Ｏ目

。口出“Ｑ

【】〇

。】００つ●】

ＯＺ

Ｏ】ＱＱ“Ｏ口】Ｑ

“^００】Ｑ“一

】^０００●】

ＯＺ

Ｏ】ＱＱ“ＯＣ【Ｑ

“^００】Ｑ“↓

。目出“Ｑ

【】〇

】^００●●】

ＯＺ

』ｏつ０●】

ＯＺ

（めい）（∩

）卜α　　　（ば）（∩）卜α

含３

０Σ

（“）ＯΣ　　（めＣ

〓〓０

（“）一ｃ“』０

∽口〇】↓】ＯＣ００

（０』０“）

Ｔ

ｏ】一雷一∽】ざ

“

＝

●∞ｏ“）

（〇・〇〇】）つ。Ｎつトヘ寸

（〇・〇〇【）　】・め〇∞（寸

（〇・ｏＯ】）寸。】∞∞め^】

（〇・〇〇】）Ｎ。寸卜∞寸^】

【“↓〇ト


（】。Ｎ）　　】・∞い

（〇・〇）　　　〇・】

（】・べ）　　　い。「〇】

（〇・〇）　　　〇・】

（卜・卜）　　Ｎ・寸卜〇へ】

（】・〇）　　　〇。つ】

（つ。卜）　　つ。卜∞〇】^

ＯＯＣ一〇ＯＱ∽

一〇Ｚ

今

ｏｏｏ

へｏ●げ∽〇口】

言ＯＯ〓０∽

、^】〇一９綱

】】壺日

∽

ｏ^∽●〇〓）

“目】０】】う０

】〇』

-50-

（】・〇）　　　∞・寸

（∞・“）　　い。い卜【

（Ｎ。Ｎ）　　∞。つ〇【

（】・〇）　　　い。∞

（め。】）　　　寸・∞つ

（】・〇）　　　∞・寸

（卜・め）　　卜。い卜】

（寸・〇）　　　Ｎ・】Ｎ

（】・〇）　　　い。め

（∞・】）　　寸。めつ

（〇・〇）　　　い。「

（】・〇）　　　卜・ト

（い。寸）　　　い。いいつ

（〇・〇）　　　寸・】

】上‐口〇

・一∽∽■目】ＯＱ

〓一てＦ

∽ＱＯ】０

』０〓一〇

ご０つ０●】

、】目〇

四十ｏ““∽へ】Ｏｏつ●】、【口〇

寸

Ｎ^ゴ＋６０

】上‐口〇】∽∽■目「ＯＱ〓で゙Ｆ∽ＱＯ】０』０〓一〇ヘロ出“Ｑ覇〇、【口〇

寸

Ｎ^

＾】‐†ＣＯ】∽∽■●』ＯＱ

〓いてＦ

∽ＱＯ】０

』Ｏ〓一〇

。∽一●口００００

０口“

口出“Ｑ

】】〇

、【目〇

寺

＾め

へＮ上下口〇】∽∽■目』ＯＱ

〓一てＦ

∽ＱＯ』０

』０〓一〇

∽^一５ＣＯＯＯＯ

、【目〇

（〇・〇）　　　い。Ｏ

（】・〇）　　　い。寸

（い。ＮＮ）　寸。∞∞〇へ】

（∞。つい）　つ。つ〇トヘＮ

（】。つ）　　め。い∞Ｎ

（】・〇）　　つ。い

（∞・寸）　　め。つ〇べ

（】・〇）　　　い。∞

（〇・〇）　　　い。Ｏ

（【・〇）　　　い。寸

（卜・ベロ）　つ。はい〇へ】

（〇・∞い）　つ。卜∞卜ＡＮ

（卜・つ）　　い。ＯＲめ

（】・〇）　　０・い

（い。寸）　　　寺。つ】Ｎ

（【・〇）　　　い。∞

（】・〇）　　】。い

（】・寸め）　　め・〇“卜（寺

（め・】い）　い。い一】^ト

（〇・〇）　　　つ。∞

（Ｎ・〇）　　Ｎ。い一

（】・〇）　　　】。い

（口。卜め）　　寸・め寸めい^

（い。寸い）　〇・寸い∞ト^

（Ｎ・〇

（∞・〇

（〇・〇

（め・〇

（】・〇

（∞・〇

〇．めＮ

寸。い

一

い。

い

寸。四

寸

い。い

】

つ。α

】】

寸

Ｎ^

．】＋‐．〇●

】上丁目〇】∽∽■目】ＯＱ

〓一てＦ

∽ＱＯ】０

』Ｏ〓一〇

．』００つ●】

、】目〇

目^出“Ｑ

【】〇

〇Ｚ

Ｎ上丁目〇】∽∽■●』ＯＱ

一●〇〓一てＦ

】ＯＱＱＯＱ

へ“００

。【Ｑ“一

へ０【ＱａＣＯ目

・【Ｑ

』^００つ”】

ＯＺ

寸

へＮ

言

＋

６

０

「キ‐．〇●

目〇】∽∽■●』ＯＱ

〓一てＦ

∽ＱＯ】０

】０〓一〇

∽^↓●●０〇〇０

、】ＣＯ

ヘロ出“Ｑ

【・】Ｏ

ｆＯつ０●】

ＯＺ

Ｎ

ゴ

＋

６

０

０上丁目〇】∽∽■目】ＯＱ

一●〇〓↓てＦ

】ＯＱＱＯＱ

“^００】Ｑ“一

ぃ０【ＱＱ“ｏ目】Ｑ

Ｏロ

ヘロ出“Ｑ

【】〇

』^００つ●】

ＯＺ

寸

Ｎ^

＾】‐†０【ＱＱ“ｏ目】Ｑ

、【目〇

へ∽ａＯ】ｏ

一目ｏ目“Ｃ】】ＯＱ

】Ｏ〓一〇

∽^一●ＣＯ０００

口^出“Ｑ

【・】〇

へ】００つ●】

ＯＺ

Ｏ】ＱＱ“０目】Ｑ

“^００】Ｑ“↓

。口】【“Ｑ

【】〇

〇Ｚ

Ｏ【ＱＱＣＯ目】Ｑ

“^００】Ｑ“一

．饉出“Ｑ

】・【Ｏ

へ』００つ”』

ＯＺ

』０００●』

ＯＺ

含ま【）（Σ）卜α

（●“ｏ“）（Σ）卜α

含まし

ばΣ国

（●汐“）“Σ国

∽目〇】一・】０目００

（（゙゛）０』０“）

』Ｏｍｍ目目』【．̈

∽

目

・目〓目Ч“

目【∽０【↓】↓

●目“【

０〓゛

目】

■０∽●ａ目

・目

０』９醸

〓ｏ嘱〓≧Ｆ∽目０一↓【一目００）　

．せ

０【´“ト


Table 5. Registration of SS inBahru, Mk. Sg. Punggor,

Mk. Sg. Kluang

in the 1900s and the 1910s, there should havebeen room to choose rubber as a main crop. Evenduring the 1920s if they really thought rubber wasadvantageous compared to other crops, it shouldnot have been impossible to plant rubber on theland they had cleared, against the endeavor of thegovernment to restrict rubber cultivation bysmallholders, as some case studies in other dis-tricts indicate (Kato,1991; Oh, 1993).e) Then thequestion arises again: why the pioneer settlers inMukim Sg. Punggor chose coconut, not rubber.To answer this question we have to consider theecological conditions in this area.

As we have seen in the previous chapter, mostof the land in Mukim Sg. Punggor was reclaimedfrom mangrove forest which had been developedby the early 1930s except for the deep peat land inthe north-east. The land which had not long beenreclaimed was called "tanah mesin" (salty land)because there still remained much salt in the soil.As time passed the content of salt was decreasirg,but before the implementation of Johor WestIntegrated Agricultural Development Pro-gramme (IADP) from 1974 to 1988, this re-claimed land, although it was protected by thebunds from tidal intrusion, was often inundatedby seawater which flowed back into rivers ordrains and then overflowed into the gardens whenheavy rain and high tide happened to occur at thesame time. Generally speaking, rubber preferswell-drained soil and is vulnerable to saltwater.On the other hand coconut grows well and bearsgood fruit on the land inundated by saltwater inmoderation. In Ren git area coconut trees whichgrow on the coastal side of the trunk road, whichwas built on the old bund, bear better fruit com-pared to those in the interior side with lowerintensity of inundation of saltw ater, although thecoconut gardens on the coastal fringe were oftendestroyed by prolonged inundation of saltwater.

We can now propose an answer to the questionwhich was posed above. For the pioneer settlersin Mukim Sg. Punggor, there was no other choicebut to plant coconut on the land newly reclaimedfrom mangrove forest which still contained muchsalt. As time passed the content of salt went ondecreasirg, and rubber planting might havebecome possible especially in the interior, but atthe time of agricultural pioneering in Mukim Sg.

Punggor from the latter half of the 1910s to theearly 1930s rubber prices had already droppedand must have become not so attractive to thepioneer settlers. If there had been advantage inrubber compared to other crops, they would have

Mk.Kg.and

(10tS)

Y∽r鼈謂・乳灘Mko Sg。

Kluang

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

307

244

35

411

236

34

49

140

312

368

80

107

118

2

0

341

400

69

lZレ4

165

33

68

881

660

109

93

33

1,877

(Mk.:Mukim)Source: The author's survey of SS (Surat Semantara).Note: The registration of SS before 1916 in Mk. Kg.

Bahru was not identified.

been registered for many lots in the latter half ofl9l0s, while in Mukim Sg. Punggor and MukimSg. Kluang the registration of SS had started inearnest in the middle of the 1920s. If we considerthe fact that in Mukim Sg. Punggor the land forwhich application was approved in the latter halfof the 1920s was extensively developed from thelatter half of the 1910s to the early 1920s, it seems

reasonable to suppose that in Mukim Kg. Bahruthe land was developed on a large-scale in thelatter half of the 1900s and in the l9l0s. It islikely that pioneer settlers in Mukim Kg. Bahruflocked to rubber cultivation before the restrictivegovernment policy began to take shape in the late1910s. The registration of EMR in Mukim Kg.Bahru started in earnest in the late 1920s, but inthe EMR which replaced the SS which was regis-tered before 1919, basically no conditions pro-hibiting rubber cultivation were entered irrespec-tive of the year of registration of EMR itself. Asis different from Mukim Sg. Punggor, we can findout many lots which were alienated for rubber inMukim Kg. Bahru.

It is safe to say that a little time lag of agricul-tural land development had caused contrastingland uses in adjacent two areas, that is, rubber-dominant Senggarang and coconut-dominantRengit. However, for the pioneer settlers inMukim Sg. Punggor who had developed the land

Total 2,4牛 1 1,121

-51-


chosen rubber even if the ecological conditionswere not so suitable. But in Ren git area whichwas inundated by saltwater occasionally, coconutbore good fruit, although the harvest became

worse in the interior side. The pioneer settlers inMukim Sg. Punggor were likely to judge coconutto be advantageous compared to rubber also

taking into consideration coconut prices at thattime, and they dared not plant rubber against thegovernment policy.

IV. Land Use 2-The Conversion to OilPalm and The Inhoduction of Inter-cropping

The land use in Rengit area which was domi-nated by coconut has begun to change since thelate 1970s. In 1991 coconut growing area haddecreased to about TOVo of the total agriculturalland, and about one-fourth had been converted tooil palm gardens. In addition, in about half of thecoconut gardens such crops as coffee, cacao,banana, and pineapple are intercropped (Table6). The growin g area of pineapple which occup-ies 4Vo of the total agricultural land concentrateson the deep peat land in the northeast because itprefers acid soil. In adjoining Machap area onthe northeastern side of Ren git area, one of thelargest pineapple estates in peninsular Malaysiawas developed on the deep peat land in the 1960s.

The main reasons for the conversion from co-conut to oil palm and the emergence of inter-cropping are the fall of coconut prices and itsproductivity. Many villagers attribute the declineof productivity to the aging of coconut and thechanges in ecological conditions. Since the im-plementation of Johor West IADP the coconutgardens in Rengit area have not been inundatedby saltwater. This condition may be suitable formost of the commercial crops such as oil palmor coffee, but not so good for coconut. Somevillagers also pointed out the climate has changed

and it has become hot and dry in this area com-pared to former days. Anyway, since the late1970s, for the smallholders who can raise themoney for the conversion to oil palm and hold onfor some years before it bears fruit, oil palm has

become one of the most profitable crops in thisarea. Other cash crops such as coffee, cacao,banana, and pineapple which are intercropped inthe coconut gardens compensate for the agricul-tural incomes of the smallholders who cannot ordare not go into oil palm production. By the early1990s most of the oil palm gardens which wereconverted from coconut gardens were located onthe interior side where the productivity of coco-nut was relatively low, but in the middle of the1990s even in the coastal zone we can find not afew oil palm gardens and some lots where oldcoconut trees have already been cut down and oilpalm seedlings are waiting for harvest in the nearfuture.

We can read the land use changes in Mukim Sg.

Punggor also in the records in the land titles. Butinformation about land use in the land titles has

not been fully updated, and therefore it does notdescribe the real situation of the present land use.

In 1993 the area where the conversion to oil palmwas recorded accounted for only 5.3Vo of thetotal area alienated under EMR, and only 6.3Vo

of the total area alienated under QT(M) wasplanted with oil palm (Table 3). These figures aretoo small compared to the data obtained from theAgricultural Department mentioned above andalso contradict the author's impression of fieldsurvey. If the land use is changed from coconutto oil palm, the land tax for the proper lot almostdoubles. In addition, any change of the land use

and related conditions such as "No rubber, oilpalm, tapioca, pineapple" imposed on the landtitles, must be applied for by the owners them-selves and processing usually takes some time.Therefore many cases of land use change seem to

(vo)Table 6. Planting area of main crops in Rengit area in 1991

Mukim Agricultural land Coconut Oil palm Coffee Cacao Pineapple Banana Rubber

Sg. PunggorSg. Kluang

100

100

78

66

22

25

23

22

t2t4

Total 24 22

Source: The author's calculation based on the data in "Laporan Statistik Pertanian Daerah Batu Pahat Tahun1991"

Note: The figures in this table are the percentage of planting area of each crop to the total agricultural land. Thesum totals of each crop don't become 100 due to intercropping.

100

52


be left unregistered in the titles as some results offield survey indicate (Nagata, 1994).

V. Land Ownership-The Changing BthnicMosaic

According to the 1980 Census, STVo of the totalpopulation in Mukim Sg. Punggor is Malay andl3Vo is Chinese.ro) The ethic factors which mayaffect access to the land and its registration pre-

sent some important problems we must consider.As a beginning, we will examine the ethnic com-position when the application for land was ap-

proved (Fig. 5).tt) In the middle of the 1920s the

application was made actively by both Malaysand Chinese and the land which was applied forby Chinese had amounted to 59.8Vo by 1924 and

45.lVoby 1928 of the cumulative total. From the

late 1920s to the early 1930s the application by

Chinese still continued, but as a result of the steep

rise in the application by Malays the percentage

of the land which was applied for by Chinese had

decreased to 2l.2Vo in 1933. After 1933 the

application by Chinese had almost disappeared

while most of the applications after the Second

World War were made by Malays.If no transactions had occurred and therefore

the approved applicant had become and con-

tinued to be a landowner, the ethnic compositionof the alienated land in Mukim Sg. Punggorwould have been Malays: 84.8Vo and Chinese:

I5.2Vo in 1993. But in reality the compositionhad changed to Malays: 75.8% and Chinese:

０∞にＯ』０く

2(脚

18鰤

lαXЮ

14000

12(m

l(XXЮ

8m0

6000

側

2(XЮ

0晨

】

ｎ∞Ｑ［

〇∞い〓

η卜い】

〇卜Ｑ〓

りつい】

〇つい［

ηｎＱ】

ｖュ

ｏｎＱ】

崎寸Ｑ［

ま

〓

η”Ｑ【

〇゛Ｑ［

ηＮＱ】

ＯＮＱ出

Fig. 5. Accumulated approval ofapplication for lsnd and its ethnic cornposition in Mukim Sg. Punggor


Table 7. Ctanges of ethnic composition of the alienated land between the approval ofapplication and 1993 in Mukim Sg. Punggor

(%)

可―――

イーーー

¶

―Ｉ

Ｈ

Ｈ

Ｈ

目

日

＝

日

|

|

イロロロロＨＨ

1|

イ

‐‐‐

|

＝＝ＨＩＩ＝＝Ｈ＝――＝Ｈ

|

―

‐

イ

ー

[I

|

At the time of approval ofapplication

1993

Malays Chinese Malays Chinese Others

The land for which application was

approved under DP ( 1922-1937)The land for which application was

approved under AO (1938-1965)The land for which application was

approved under QT(M) (1966-1993)

79。 8 20.2

94.9

96.7

66.7

93.2

96.6

32.3 0.9

0.4

3.4 0。0


―- 53 -一

15。 2 75.8 23.6 0。 7Total 84.8


Table 8. Transfers of the alienated landamong the ethnic groups between the

approval of application and 1993in Mukim Sg. Punggor

(acre (Vo))

was originally applied for by Malays (Table 8).The land applied for by Chinese lay scattered onboth sides of the trunk road to around Pt. (parit: drain) Haji Abdul Rahman which ran east andwest about 6 km inland (Fig. 6a,6c). This area isincluded in the land which was developed by theearly 1930s. In 1993 the land owned by Chinesehad expanded dramatically especially by addingthe adjoining land (Fig. 6b, 6d). In the areaswhere the Chinese-owned land is now concentrat-ed, Chinese houses line the drain (parit or sungai)and Malay houses are not seen any more. 12)

Besides this we can also recogni ze the increase oflots owned by Chinese in the area near the coast-line and the interior side where the lands whichwere applied for by Chinese were rare, whereasalong the trunk road and near the intersection ofPt. Perpat and Pt. Haji Abdul Rahman someamount of land had transferred from Chinese toMalays.

On the other hand, the Malay community inMukim Sg. Punggor had acquired land by appli-cation throughout the period of agricultural de-velopment, but along with it handed over muchmore land to the Chinese community than thecontrary and consequently decreased its land onbalance, especially in the area which was devel-oped before the Second World War. However, incontrast to the Chinese community, the Malaycommunity was able to access to the newly devel-oped land after the Second World War on thedeep peat land in the northeast. This area, mostof which has already been alienated under QT(M), is also basically a freehold area, but condi-tions which in practice restrict transactions wereimposed on most of the titles (Table 4). In thebeginning, only transfer for a period of 10 yearsfrom the date of approval of occupation wasprohibited, but soon after that almost all kinds oftransactions such as sale, mortgage, charg€, rent,and transfer came to be prohibited without per-mission of the authority. These measures are saidto have been adopted to prevent the Malay set-tlers from losing their land soon after the landwas alienated.

As I have already mentioned repeatedly, Rengitarea which includes Mukim Sg. Punggor has beenbasically a freehold area, and there was no suchland declared to be Malay Reservation beforeindependence in 1957. But after 1959 some spo-radic lots were declared to be Malay Reservationon request of the proprietor with the consent ofall interested persons. Of course, if the land isonce declared to be Malay Reservation, land tra-

[1993]

Malays Chinese Others Total

[0五 gin]MalayS 13,781.9

Chinese 712.0

2,348.9 96.9 16,227.8

2,156.1 32.1 2,900。 3

Total 14,494.0 4,505。 1 129.0 19,128。 0

(75。 8) (23.6) (0。 7) (10000)

(Origin: At the time of approval of application.)Source: The author's survey of land titles.

23.6% in 1993 according to the land titles (Table7). If we look at the land where the applicationwas approved under DP during the period from1922 to 1937 only, the ethnic composition at thetime of application was Malays:79.8Vo and Chi-nese: 2O.2Vo, but it had changed to Malays:66.7 Vo and Chinese: 32.3Vo in 1993. As to theland where the application was approved underAO during the period from 1938 to 1965 and QT(M) during the period from 1966 to 1993, most ofthe applications were made by Malays and thereare only minor changes in the ethnic composition.Anyway, after 60 to 7O years have passed sincethe application for land was approved, the Chi-nese community in Mukim Sg. Punggor as awhole has increased its land, and on the otherhand the Malay community as a whole has de-creased its land especially in the area which wasdeveloped before the Second World War. Thisfact indicates many land transactions have actual-ly taken place since the beginning of agriculturalpioneering in this area and there existed someimportant differences in behavior of each commu-nity concerning land transactions.

From the viewpoint of land legislation, Rengitareawhich includes Mukim Sg. Punggor is catego-nzed as a freehold area where as a general ruleland transactions can be done freely. The Chinesecommunity in Mukim Sg. Punggor had access tothe land through application in the early stages ofagricultural pioneering from the middle of the1920s to the early 1930s, but after that it acquiredmuch more land from the Malay community thanthe contrary through land transactions and in-creased its land on balance. Of the land whichwas owned by Chinese in t993, the land whichwas initially applied for by Chinese accounts foronly 45Vo, and the remaining 55Vo is land which

-54-


Fig. 6a. The land applied for by Chinese in Mukim Sg. Punggor (southern part)

nsactions with non-Malays are prohibited and itsvalue is decreased, but annual land tax is reducedabout fifty percent. In Mukim Sg. Punggor theland which was declared to be Malay Reservationfrom 1959 to 1993 amounted to 2,389.5 acre,

which made up l2.5Vo of the total alienated land,and l6.5Vo of the land owned by Malays (Table9). If we look at the land which was alienatedunder EMR, Grant, and MG only, most of which

was developed before the Second World War, thepercentage of the land declared to be MalayReservation rises to 18.IVo of the land owned byMalays. The registration of Malay Reservationwas concentrated in 1973, around 1981, and 1985.

The registration around 1981 was made mainly inthe area which was alienated under QT(M) (Fig.7).

As to Malay Reservation there is an argument

55


Fig. 6b. The land owned by Chinese in 1993 in Mukim Sg. Punggor (southern part)

that the colonial government intended to preventan outflow of Malay villagers and stabilize theircommunities by prohibiting land transactions be-tween Malays and non-Malays and decreasing theland value to almost nil (Mizushima, 1994).Here, it suffices to say that in Mukim Sg. Punggorwhere Malay Reservation was not set up duringthe colonial period, the land property of theMalay community as a whole has decreased to

some extent especially in the area which wasdeveloped before the Second World War throughactive land transactions with non-Malays, partic-ularly the Chinese community. 13) It needs furtherinvestigation to determine how the accumulationand distribution of land property and the relatedups and downs of social standing among thevillagers in Mukim Sg. Punggor was affected bythe fact that Malay Reservation was not created

56

during the colonial period. t+)

VI. Concluding Remarks

The agricultural land development in MukimSg. Punggor had begun as early as the 1900s, andthrough the 1910s, 1920s, and early 1930s most ofthe land was opened up except for the deep peat

land in the northeast which was left untoucheduntil the postwar period. The land which was

developed by the early 1930s was divided into


numerous small lots and applications for titleswere approved by the government from the

middle of the 1920s to the early 1930s. The

alienation of land had begun in 1929 through theregistration of land titles and most of the landwas alienated under EMR by the early 1940s.

In Mukim Sg. Punggor the landowners who ap-

peared in the titles were individual persons with-out exception and most of the lots did not exceed

10 acres. Through the alienation, the right over

the land was handed over from the state to the

Fig. 6c. The land apptied for by Chinese in Mukim Sg. Punggor (northern part)

57


Fig. 6d. The land owned by Chinese in 1993 in Mukim Sg. Punggor (nothern part)Source: The author's survey of land titles.

individual and thus the smallholding area wasestablished in Mukim Sg. Punggor.

The pioneer settlers who had opened up theland in Mukim Sg. Punggor did not choose rub-ber as their main crop. After the rubber boomaround 1910 the rubber prices had dropped sharp-ly and continued to be stagnant from the latterhalf of the 1910s to the early 1930s with somesporadic modest recoveries, and in response tothis situation the government adopted restrictivepolicies for rubber cultivation by smallholders. A

large amount of land in Mukim Sg. Punggor wasdeveloped exactly in this period. In addition,most of the land in this mukim was reclaimedfrom mangrove forest and therefore it containedmuch salt in the early stages of land development,and until Johor West IADP (1974-1988) wascompleted it was often inundated by saltwater.Such ecological conditions were not suitable forrubber cultivation but good to cultivate coconut.The pioneer settlers in Mukim Sg. Punggor werelikely to judge coconut to be advantageous com-

58


Table 9. Malay Reservations in Mukim Sg. Punggor in 1993

The land underEMR, Grant, MG

The land under

QT(M),QT(R)Total

The total alienated land (acreage)

The land owned by Malays (acreage)14,317.9

9,866.0

49810.1

4,628.0

19,128.0

14,494.0

Malay Reservations (acreage)(The percentage to the total alienated land)(The percentage to the land owned by Malays)

1,788.0

(12.5)

(18.1)

601.4

(12.5)

(13。 0)

2,389.5

(12.5)

(16.5)

綱　　硼

０∞“０』０く


αЮ

虫Ю

pared to rubber, also taking coconut prices at thattime into consideration. The historical timing ofland development and the specific ecological con-ditions in this area made this mukim a distinctivecoconut growing area which contrasted sharplywith adjoining rubber-dominant areas. It is an

important but unsettled question how the rise andfall of the coconut economy affected the trend ofsocial change in Mukim Sg. Punggor. Since thelate 1970s the coconut-dominant land use inMukim Sg. Punggor has begun to change and theconversion to oil palm and the introduction ofintercropping are under way. We must also pay

attention to the relationships between socioeco-nomic and cultural backgrounds of land ownersand their decision-making on land use.

One of the important factors which may affectthe access to the land and its use, and the accumu-lation and distribution of landed property is an

ethnical one. According to the 1980 Census, STVo

of the total population in Mukim Sg. Punggor is

目 Thcland under QT(M),QT(R)

■ Theland undcr EMR,Gttnt,MG

Malay and l3Vo is Chinese. But the ethnic com-position of the alienated land in 1993 was Malay:7 5.8Vo and Chines e: 23.6Vo according to the landtitles. If an approved applicant had become and

continued to be a landowner, the ethnic composi-tion of the alienated land should have been

Malay: 84.87o and Chinese: 15.2Vo in 1993. Butin reality many land transactions had taken place

and because there existed some important differ-ences in the behavior of each community as to theland transactions, the Chinese community had

increased its land as a whole, and on the otherhand the Malay community had decreased itsland as a whole. The fact that Malay Reservationwas not set up during the colonial period is likelyto play a vital role in the tide of social change inthis area.

The agricultural land development in MukimSg. Punggor was mainly made by the Malay com-munity, but in the early stages of agriculturalpioneering the Chinese community also made a

”いＱ［

】ＱＱ〓

Ｑ∞Ｑ】

卜∞Ｑ［

η∞Ｑ】

ｍ∞Ｑ】

〓∞Ｑ〓

いい０「

トトＱ】　ｒ

ｎ卜Ｑ〓Ｙ

ｍ卜Ｑ】

〓ま

「

いま

Ｈ

卜よ

】

ｎつい】

“つＱ【

日ま

】

ＱηＱ】

Fig. 7. Registration of Malay Reservations in Mukim Sg. Punggor


一- 59 -一

large contribution. However, after 1933 applica-tions for land by the Chinese community hadalmost disappeared, and the development of thedeep peat land in the northeast after the SecondWorld War was exclusively attributed to theMalay community. In addition, after independ-ence some sporadic lots were declared to beMalay reservation on request of the proprietors.We can notice the trend of policies to try toprotect and increase the landed property of theMalay community especially in the post-independence period. It is also an important andinteresting question how the ethnic factors, close-ly connected with specific political and institu-tional conditions, have affected the behavior ofthe smallholders in Mukim Sg. Punggor as to landtransactions and land use, and then influenced theaccumulation and distribution of land propertyand the related ups and downs of social standingamong the people.

Acknowledgments

The research in Malaysia has been carried outintermittently since 1992. From September 1993to February 1994 it was made possible under thesponsorship of the Ministry of Education, Sci-ence, and Culture, Japan (Grant-in-Aid for Inter-national Scientific Research, No. 05041015: Cul-tural Ecology of a Multiethnic Nation-A Case

Study of Malaysia, Project Chief, Prof. Y. Kom-oguchi of Komazawa University, Tokyo) andFukutake Science and Culture Foundation (Cul-tural Ecology of Agricultural Development inJohor, Malaysia). The stay in Malaysia fromOctober 1994 to September 1996 as a researchassociate of University of Malaya, Department ofGeography was made possible by Nitobe Fellow-ship Program managed by the InternationalHouse of Japan. The field work from July 1995 toSeptember 1995 was supported by a grant fromthe Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture,Japan (Grant-in-Aid for International ScientificResearch, No. 07041024: Cultural Ecology ofLocal Towns in a Multiethnic Nation-A Case Studyof Malaysia, Project Chief, Prof. Y. Komoguchiof Komazawa University, Tokyo). I would liketo acknowledge here the generosity of these or-ganizations. In Malaysia, I am indebted to theEconomic Planning Unit in the Prime Minister'sDepartment, and various departments of theJohor State Government, especially, Land andDistrict Office in Batu Pahat, Land and Sub-district Office in Ren git, Lands and Mines Office


in Johor Bahru, and Department of Agriculturein Rengit, Batu Pahat and Johor Bahru. I wish toexpress my sincere thanks to them all.

Notes

1. Tanaka (1993) gives brief consideration tothe concept of "frontier" in connection witha debate over the characteristics of SoutheastAsian society.

2. Nagata (1995) summarizes the kind of titlesand other related documents which are avail-able as to Mukim Sg. Punggor, and discusses

their nature and problems as materials forstudy and then presents some basic data de-rived from these documents.

3. Here I took up the oldest record in DP orAO of each lot which was alienated finally as

the year when application was approved. Ifthere is no such record in respect of the lotconcerned, the year of registration of landtitles is adopted for the sake of conveniece,but such a case is rare as to the land alienatedunder final titles. On the other hand there isoften no such record in respect of the landwhich was alienated under qualified titles.

4. If we follow the coastal road which connectsthe main two towns (bandar) in westernJohor, that is, Batu Pahat and Pontian Kecil,we can find some small towns (pekan) at thecrossing point of main streams (sungai).These small towns are Sen ggarang, Rengit,Benut, and Ayer Baloi from west to east(Fig. 1). The drainage area of each streamforms not only an ecological unit but also a

unit of local society centered on this smalltown from historical and socioeconomic view-points. "Rengit area" here indicates Rengittown (pekan Rengit) and its hinterland. Itapproximately corresponds to the catchmentarea of Rengit river (Sungai Rengit) andsome other small streams ecologically, andthe territory of Mukim Sg. Punggor andMukim Sg. Kluang administratively.

5. "Kampung" cultivation indicates mixed typeof land use consisting of fruit trees, rootcrops, and other vegetation in the housecompound (Voon, 1977; Khoo and Voon,Le77).

6. The conditions which were mainly imposedon the EMR at the time of registration inMukim Sg. Punggor had changed from "NoRubber" to "No Rubber, oil palm, tapioca,pineapple" since early 1938.

一- 60 -一


We can find a few cases of conditions inwhich the prohibition on rubber cultivationwas deleted after registration with the note"Special condition wrongly entered and de-

leted". In respect of these lots it is likely thatrubber was planted, but such cases are negli-gible in Mukim Sg. Punggor.As to Mukim Kg. Bahru, unfortunately DPis not fully available due to loss and is notusable for the purpose here. This is why Itake up SS as a material which suggests theyear of land development. Normally SS wasprepared soon after application was ap-proved in DP. In Land and Sub-districtOffice in Rengit there remain the books of SS

from no. I of 1916 to no. 22 of 1928 inrespect of Mukim Kg. Bahru, but when Iskimmed through the EMR of Mukim Kg.Bahru I found that SS had already been

registered during the first half of the 1910s.

The books of SS before 1916 have not yetbeen found. This fact is a little confusing,but does not influence the outline of discus-sion here.

Kato ( 1991) strongly suggests in MukimJohol, Kuala Pilah district, Negeri Sembilan,the rubber smallholdings expanded signifi-cantly during the period from 1924 to 1930

despite the restrictive polices of the colonialgovernment. And also Oh ( 1993) asserts

that immigrants from the Indonesian Archi-pelago, who flocked to Johor in large num-bers in the 19 10s and 1920s, preferred toplant rubber on the land they cleared.About 90% of the Malays in Mukim Sg.

Punggor are said to be of Javanese origin andthe remaining lUVo are Melayu, Bugis,Banjar. Most of the Chinese in Mukim Sg.

Punggor are said to be of Hokkien originwhose ancestors arrived almost at the same

time as the Javanese.

In this paper "the land applied for by Chi-nese" includes 29.0 acres of land applied forby Indians, and "the land owned by Othersin 1993" includes 19.7 acres of land ownedby Indians. But these figures are negligible.In adjoining Mukim Sg. Kluang in Rengitarea we can find an abandoned mosque in thearea where the Chinese-owned land is nowconcentrated. It is likely that some Malaykampung had disappeared along with theexpansion of the Chinese-owned land, butthis problem needs further investigation.Ho (1980, 1981) reports in Mukim Rasa and

Mukim Batang Kali, Ulu Selangor district,the State of Selangor, the land owned byMalays had been reduced about 40Vo from5,577.5 acres at the time of alienation to3,310 acres in 1975. Most of this loss isexplained by the transfers to the Chinesecommunity, but after the creation of eightMalay Reservations between 1916 and 1939

the encroachment on Malay-owned land was

almost stopped. And Voon (1976, 1977)concludes, based on the survey of Reserva-tion and Non-Reservation lands in MukimSemenyih and Ulu Semenyih, Ulu Langatdistrict, the State of Selangor, the creation ofMalay Reservation was successful in preserv-

ing Malay land ownership in rural areas,

although he admits it is altogether anotherquestion whether the mere retention of landownership ensured effective agricultural de-

velopment and permanent settlement in these

areas for the benefit of the community con-cerned.

14. Mizushima ( 1994), based on the study ofland administration in Perak, expresses hisview that the local leaders did not come fromamong the landed elite but from the commit-ment to the political power of the state.

However, in Johor where it has not been longsince large-scale settlement was begun com-pared to the other states of peninsular Ma-laysia and the area declared to be MalayReservation during the colonial period was

relatively small, the possibilities of the emer-gence of local leaders from among the landedelite and the appearance of social stratific-ation from the early stages of agriculturalpioneering should be closely examined.

References

Ho, W. S. 1980. Patterns of Land Ownership inThe Malay Reservations of Mukim Rasa andMukim Batang Kali, Selangor (1916-1975).Geographica. 14: Il-24.

Ho, W. S. 1981. Changing Ethnic Patterns ofLand Ownership in Mukim Rasa and MukimBatang Kali, Selangor ( 1891-1975). Malay-sian Journal of Tropical Geography. 3: 28-36.

Kato, T. 1990. When Rubber Came: The NegeriSembilan Experience. Southeast Asian Studies.29(2): 109-157.

Khoo, S. H. and Voon, P. K. 1977. Origins andCharacteristics of Agricultural Settlements inPeninsular Malaysia. ln Man, Culture, and

10.

61

settlement, edited by R. c. Eidt, K. N. Singh,and R. P. B. Singh. New Dehli: Kalyani Pub-lishers.

Mizushima, T. 1994. Land Administration inPerak. Tounan Ajia-Rekishi to Bunka-,23:22-42. (in Japanese with English summary)

Nagata, J. 1994. A Case Study of a Local Land-lord and His Estate Management in LowlandJohor. Southeast Asian Studies. 32(3): 357-384. (in Japanese with English summary)

Nagata, J. 1995. Notes on Land Titles of MukimSungai Punggor, Rengit, Johor. ln HumanEcology in Rural Malaysia, edited by Y. Komo-guchi. Tokyo: Institute for Applied Geogra-phy, Komazaw a University.


Oh, M. S. 1993. Other Malay Peasants. The

Making of Rubber Smallholders in Johor, Ma-laysia. (unpublished Ph. D. thesis at MonashUniversity)

Tanaka, K. 1993. Furontia Shakai no Henyo. InChiiki Kenkyu to "Hatten" no Rom'r, edited byT. Yano. Tokyo: Kobundou. (in Japanese)

Voon, P. K. 1976. Malay Reservations andMalay Land Ownership in Semenyih and UluSemenyih Mukims, Selangor. Modern AsianStudies. 10(4): 509 -523.

Voon, P. K. 1977. Rural Land Ownership andDevelopment in the Malay Reservations ofPeninsular Malaysia. Southeast Asian Studies.l4(4)z 496-512.

62

repo.komazawa-u.ac.jprepo.komazawa-u.ac.jp/opac/repository/all/16618/kci009-05-nagataju… ·...

Documents