¹ Figart, D.M., The Plantation Rubber Industry in the Middle East (Washington, 1925)Google Scholar, Tables 127, 132 and 142, pp. 271, 277, 281. Annual figures from this source for the Malayan acreage are set out in Appendix A at the end of this paper.

² The best study here is Jackson, J.C., Planters and Speculators (University of Malaya Press, Kuala Lumpur, 1968).Google Scholar The ‘shifting’ crops quickly exhausted soil nutrients in a given area and required regular transference to new blocks of land.

³ Ibid., Part 1.

⁴ Sir Macfadyen, E., ‘Managing Agents in the Eastern Plantation Industry’, Tropical Agriculture, Vol. 31, No. 4 (1954), p. 268.Google Scholar

⁵ J.C. Jackson, op. cit., p. 92.

⁶ Agricultural Bulletin of the Malay Peninsula, No. 7 (Singapore, June 1897), pp. 132–3.Google Scholar

⁷ Annual Reports Straits Settlements, 1898, p. 398.

⁸ Strict business accounting would regard a proportion of the original cost of opening the land as chargeable to the rubber account.

⁹ Emigrants Information Office London, Federated Malay States: General Information for Intending Settlers (H.M. Stationery Office, London, 1900), pp. 55–7.Google Scholar The calculations in this book contain arithmetical errors which, after correction, would raise the net returns by £2,000. The rate of exchange in 1900 was Straits $1 = 2/-.

¹⁰ See Appendix A on page 261.

¹¹ Sir Davidson, L., ‘The Rubber Plantation Industry’, Rubber Growers Association Bulletin, Vol. 9 (1927), p. 680.Google Scholar

¹² The company had an initial Authorised Capital of £20,000 for its estate of 4,000 acres of which only 200 acres were planted with coffee and rubber at the time of purchase. Annual Report and Accounts Selangor Rubber Company Ltd., 1899–1900.

¹³ Out of eighteen sterling capital companies formed in 1903–5, eight paid the first dividend on ordinary shares within two years of flotation. Calculated from Gow, Wilson and Stanton Ltd., Rubber Producing Companies (London, 1909 edition).Google Scholar Cited hereafter as Rubber Producing Companies.

¹⁴ Ibid. Details available for only twenty-five companies. Close comparison of purchase prices is not possible as estates were at differing stages of development. Valuations were usually based on a five or seven-year purchase.

¹⁵ Capper and Sons, Tropical Investors Guide (Colombo, 1907; Annual Reports, Registry of Joint-Stock Companies Singapore and Penang in Annual Reports Straits Settlements, 1901–6. The latter source only specifies the company name, from which it is not always clear whether the crop involved was rubber.

¹⁶ Babcock, G.D., History of the United States Rubber Company (Indiana University, 1966), p. 419.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Calculated from Rubber Producing Companies, 1909, 1911–12 editions. The Authorised Capital is a nominal figure and does not represent funds actually raised at this time. It is, however, more readily calculable from available data than Issued Capital which changed at frequent intervals.

¹⁸ Calculated from Annual Reports, Registry of Joint-Stock Companies Singapore and Penang 1909–10 in Proceedings of Legislative Council, Straits Settlements, 1910 and 1911.

¹⁹ Agricultural Bulletin Straits and F.M.S., Vol. 8 (1909), pp. 572–5.Google Scholar

²⁰ Knorr, E., World Rubber and Its Regulation (Stanford, 1945), p. 89.Google Scholar

²¹ Greniers Rubber Annual 1910 (K. Lumpur), p. 3.

²² A.W.S. [Still, A.W.], Rubber Estate Values (Straits Times Press, Singapore, 1911). pp. 77–9.Google Scholar

²³ Schumpeter, J.A., Business Cycles, Vol. 1 (New York, 1939), pp. 431–2.Google Scholar

²⁴ Greniers Rubber News (K. Lumpur, fortnightly), various issues October 1909-May 1910.

²⁵ See e.g. Highlands and Lowlands Para Rubber Company Ltd.: History of the Company 1906–56 (Published by the Company, 1956), pp. 14–15.Google Scholar

²⁶ Bukit Nanas Syndicate papers, 1904–7. Consulted by permission of Guthrie and Company Ltd., Singapore.

²⁷ The northern Malay States of Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan and Trengganu were transferred from Siamese to British protection.

²⁸ See Board of Trade ‘dead companies’ files (Series BT 31, Public Record Office, London).

²⁹ Lists of shareholders for various sterling and dollar companies, consulted by permission of Edward Boustead and Company Ltd., London, and the Registrar of Companies, Kuala Lumpur. Instances occur of new flotations in which the bulk of the shares for public issue were applied for by the ‘Directors and their friends', e.g. Batu Kawan Rubber and Coconut Plantations Ltd., Prospectus 3 September 1909, applications for 25,000 out of 42,500 shares.

³⁰ Compiled from files in the Selangor and Negri Sembilan Secretariat records, 1909–10 (National Archives of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur).

³¹ Calculated from Rubber Producing Companies, 1909, 1911–12 editions. The second largest category is 18% for estates over 5,000 acres.

³² A similar conclusion is reached in a study of Pahang. See Cant, R.G., ‘An Historical Geography of Pahang 1889–1939’, (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Malaya, 1965), pp. 102–3.Google Scholar

³³ Singapore and Straits Directory 1911, Malacca section; A.W.S. [ Still, A.W.], Dollar Share Values (Straits Times Press, Singapore, 1911). These interests centred on Singapore and Malacca.Google Scholar

³⁴ Malacca Rubber Plantations Ltd., Prospectus, 22 January 1906.

³⁵ Jen, Woo Tee. Pioneers of Rubber Planting (World Book Company, Singapore, 1966), pp. 82–3. This book was brought to my notice by Dr. Yong Ching Fatt, formerly of the University of Singapore, and Mr. David Pong of the School of Oriental and African Studies, London University, kindly provided a translation of the title and relevant passages.Google Scholar

³⁶ Compiled from various Mukim Registers and Memorandums of Transfer (1910) in the Kuala Lumpur and Ulu Langat District Offices, consulted by permission of the State Secretary, Selangor.

³⁷ For an example, see J.C. Jackson, op. cit., p. 249.

³⁸ See Appendix A on page 261.

³⁹ See J.H. Drabble, ‘The Plantation Rubber Industry in Malaya up to 1922', loc. cit., Table IV, p. 77.

⁴⁰ Rubber Producing Companies, 1911–12, 1916 editions, Annual Report Registry of Joint-Stock Companies, Singapore and Penang, 1911–12 in Proceedings of Legislative Council Straits Settlements, 1912 and 1913.

⁴¹ Calculated from Singapore and Straits Directory 1912, Estates Section. These figures are approximate, as some entries do not specify acreage, nor is the class of ownership always clear. The total planted area on estates over 100 acres in the F.M.S. in 1912 was 399,000 acres (Annual Report, Dir. Agr. F.M.S., 1912) of which, on the above figures, companies would account for 61%.

⁴² Only about 2 5% of the total area purchased by 100 of the sterling flotations in 1909–10 was under rubber at the time of acquisition. Calculated from Rubber Producing Companies, 1909, 1911–12 editions.

⁴³ But see Bauer, P.T., The Rubber Industry (Longmans, London, 1948), pp. 14, 270–2, 333–4. It is argued here that economies of scale arising from increased mature acreage are of lesser importance, particularly for estates above 5,000 acres. Higher yields per tree are more important. This is true in the longer term, but Bauer's observations were applied primarily to the prospects of economies resulting from amalgamation of developed estates during the 1930's depression. Conditions circa 1910–14 were different in that planted areas were uneconomically small. See footnote 42 above.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ W.A. Tinnock, ‘Some Aspects on the Valuation of Rubber Shares', Greniers Rubber Annual 1913, pp. 49–52.

⁴⁵ Ibid, p. 42. The ‘comfortable profit’ is not specified, but the long-term rubber price was put at l/6d per lb and the cost of production at not more than 1/- per lb.

⁴⁶ Calculated from Appendix A on page 261. The highest yearly rates of increase were 56% (Asian) and 3 1% (European) in 1910–11, falling to 16% and 4% respectively in 1913–14.

⁴⁷ This is a very generalised description. Some owners did adopt estate-type techniques, or modifications thereof.

⁴⁸ D.M. Figart, op. cit., pp. 87–90. Figart recognised that his estimate for Asian investment was conservative since it took no account of money borrowed at high rates of interest.

⁴⁹ Personal interview with Mr. Tan Swi Chay of Malacca, whose connection with the industry dates from about 1917.

⁵⁰ The Times (London), 19 January 1915.Google Scholar

⁵¹ The surcharge was double the normal rate of 2½% at rubber prices between l/6d and 2/6d per lb, and treble above 2/6d. The proceeds of this, and other levies on local commerce, were donated to Britain for the war effort.

⁵² See Appendix A on page 261.

⁵³ Annual Report Selangor, 1915, pp. 3–4; Negri Sembilan, 1915, p. 9. Kampong land consisted of the rice fields, coconut and fruit-tree areas, house-sites etc. which were an integral part of Malay village life, as opposed to the Kebun (or garden) situated further from the village and devoted to crops of commercial and more speculative significance. See Selangor State Secretariat file 3170/1910 for memoranda on this distinction.

⁵⁴ The F.M.S. Government felt that Malays should not be encouraged to grow rubber, since this exposed them to commercial pressures and speculative dealings in land with other communities. The Malay Reservations Enactment of 1913 provided for the designation of areas in which only Malays could hold land, which was not saleable except to another of their own race. This legislation was not notably successful in the early years, since Malays preferred land outside these areas in order to avoid the restrictions on sale.

⁵⁵ For a more detailed examination of this episode, see J.H. Drabble, ‘The Plantation Rubber Industry in Malaya up to 1922', loc. cit., pp. 65–7.

⁵⁶ The F.M.S. Government assisted smallholders through a three-month moratorium from September 1918 on debt repayments and foreclosures on lands under 50 acres. F.M.S. Government Gazette, 9 September 1918, notification 2680.

⁵⁷ D.M. Figart, op. cit., pp. 274–5. Areas under 100 acres were classified as smallholdings.

⁵⁸ See note to Appendix on page 261.

⁵⁹ Report on the Johore Land Office, 1919, p. 3.

⁶⁰ Report of the Commissions … to enquire into … (a) the present state of trade depression … and (b) the extension of credit facilities, 1921. (Govt. Printer, Singapore, 1921), Appendix I, pp. 93–9.Google Scholar Referred to hereafter as Report of the Trade Commissions 1921.

⁶¹ Rubber Producing Companies, 1922 edition. The new flotations mainly acquired mature estates. The bonus share issues by existing companies represented the capitalisation of funds, e.g. retained profits, which had been spent on estate development in earlier years but not at the time charged to share capital account.

⁶² See J.H. Drabble, ‘The Plantation Rubber Industry in Malaya up to 1922', loc. cit., pp. 68–72.

⁶³ Compiled from Rubber Producing Companies, 1923 edition.

⁶⁴ Rowe, J.W.F., Studies in the Artificial Control of Raw Material Supplies, No. 2, Rubber (London and Cambridge Economic Service, 1931), p. 17.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ See footnote 43 on page 253.

⁶⁶ Thus far practically all producers had utilised unselected seeds which produced trees of widely varying individual yields, tappable from the age of about five years. The development of selected seeds and budgrafted trees of consistent and much higher yielding-power had only just begun. These have been extensively used since the Second World War, and require a period of six to seven years to maturity.

⁶⁷ Schrieke, G.G., The Rubber Industry in the Malay Peninsula', Rubber Growers Association Bulletin, Vol. 4 (1922), pp. 445–7. For a sample of 47 sterling companies, the published all-in cost of production for 1922 ranged from 5¾d to ll½d per lb. Compiled from Rubber Producing Companies, 1923 edition.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ This hypothesis concerning the market behaviour of smallholders is based upon comments by Sir E.L. Brockman, Chief Secretary F.M.S., in a letter to the High Commissioner, 17 October 1918. High Commissioners Office file 1808/1918 (National Archives of Malaysia).

⁶⁹ Report of the Trade Commissions 1921, Appendix I, pp. 93–9. The F.M.S. Government did not declare a moratorium on foreclosures etc. as in 1918 (see footnote 56 on page 257).

⁷⁰ J.W.F. Rowe, op. cit., p. 18.

⁷¹ Appendix A on page 261. Figure for 1966 from Thomas, P.O. and Fong, A.C.C., Rubber Industry Statistics (Rubber Research Institute of Malaya, K. Lumpur, 1968), p. 18.Google Scholar

⁷² Ibid.

⁷³ Yah, Lim Chong, Economic Development of Modem Malaya (Oxford University Press, K. Lumpur, 1967), p. 103, note 4, uses planted acreage alone to measure capital formation in rubber right up to the 1960's, arguing that a time series in money terms is not available and would anyway be unsuitable due to important changes in the value of money. Surely, however, the latter problem affects all economic enquiries covering any length of time, and is not in itself sufficient reason for leaving aside such financial data as is obtainable.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ According to the Annual Report, Rubber Growers Association, London, 1922, the 288 Malayan company members of the Association had a total Issued Capital of £38,000,000. Their planted area was 665,000 acres, giving an average capitalisation of approximately £57 per acre which, applied to the European acreage in Appendix A on page 261, works out to a round figure of £70,000,000.Google Scholar