^{page 235 note 1} See Bauer, P.T., “Post War Malayan Rubber Policy: A Comment”, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies IV:1 (March 1973)Google Scholar. For a rejoinder, see my “A Reply to P.T. Bauer's Comment on Post-War Malayan Rubber Policy”, JSEAS, IV:2 (Sept 1973)Google Scholar.

^{page 236 note 2} Chairman's addresses to the Rubber Growers Association, London, annual general meeting, 31 March 1948 and 12 April 1949.

^{page 236 note 3} Sir Eric MacFadyen, address to Lanadron Rubber Estates Ltd. 20 July 1949; Sir John Hay, address to United Sua Betong Rubber Estates Ltd., 25 May 1949.

^{page 236 note 4} On the rubber restriction schemes set up between the First and Second World Wars, see Drabble, John H., Rubber in Malaya 1876–1922 (Kuala Lumpur 1973)Google Scholar; and Bauer, P.T., The Rubber Industry, A Study in Competition and Monopoly (London, 1948)Google Scholar.

^{page 236 note 5} High Commissioner Sir Gerald Templer, address to the Malayan Planting Industry Employers Association, Kuala Lumpur, June 1952.

^{page 237 note 6} Colonial Secretary Lyttleton, O., House of Commons Debates, 17 July 1952Google Scholar.

^{page 237 note 7} Cf. Silcock, Thomas H., The Economy of Malaya (Singapore, 1957), p. 19Google Scholar.

^{page 237 note 8} Peter Thorneycroft, President of the Board of Trade, H.C. Deb, 20 March 1952; 3 April 1952; and Written Reply, Legislative Council Proceedings, 2 April 1951. At the same time destinational controls were applied to Malayan rubber shipments to assure the UK and “friendly countries” a “full and regular” supply and deny the Communist bloc more than its pre-Korean War “normal civilian consumption”.

^{page 237 note 9} Straits Times, 21 Oct. 1952.

^{page 237 note 10} L.C. Paper No. 10 of 1949.

^{page 237 note 11} Member for Agricultural and Forestry, L.C. Proc. 20 March 1950.

^{page 238 note 12} See Mudie, R. F., Report of a Mission of Enquiry into the Rubber Industry of Malaya (Kuala Lumpur, 1954), pp. 2–3Google Scholar, (Henceforward: Mudie Mission Report).

^{page 238 note 13} Ibid, para 30.

^{page 238 note 14} Sir Palmer, Sydney, “Rubber in the Post War Period”, British Malaya (April 1953), 201–4Google Scholar; see also Sir John Hay, address to United Sua Betong Rubber Estates Ltd, annual meeting, 25 May 1949.

^{page 238 note 15} Final Report of the Rubber Smallholders Enquiry Committee, L.C. Paper No. 8 of 1952.

^{page 238 note 16} See Member for Agriculture and Forestry.L.C. Proc. 20 March 1950.

^{page 238 note 17} Member for Economic Affairs, L.C. Proc. 11 July 1951.

^{page 239 note 18} See Major A.C. Smith (Rubber estates appointee) L.C. Proc. 11 July 1951.

^{page 239 note 19} L.C. Proc. 11 July 1951; addresses by H.H. Facer and Khoo Teik Ee, Rubber estates appointees; see also Sir John Hay, address to United Sua Betong Rubber Estates Ltd, general meeting, 30 May 1951.

^{page 239 note 20} Cited in British Malaya, Dec., 1950, p. 141. This statement emphasized alleged administrative difficulties.

^{page 239 note 21} This levy was officially termed the ‘Schedule II cess’.

^{page 239 note 22} On the operating principles of Replanting Funds A and B, see Yah, Lim Chong, “The Malayan Rubber Replanting Taxes”, Malayan Economic Review (October 1961), 47–8Google Scholar.

^{page 240 note 23} The Rubber Industry (Replanting) Board had 18 members, of whom 15 were representatives of the industry's Rubber Producers Council. Of the latter's 15, 10 went to estate organizations, 4 to the Rubber Growers Association of London, 3 to the Malayan Estate Owners Association, and 3 to the United Planting Association of Malaya, amounting to a clear majority overall; 5 went to smallholders, divided between 4 Malays and 1 Chinese, despite the fact that at least half the smallholdings were non-Malay owned and cultivated (Rubber Statistics Handbook (Kuala Lumpur, 1952), Table 28ii). Since there were no smallholder associations in existence yet, the smallholding representation on the Board was held in trust by officials of the Rural and Industrial Development Authority. Government sent 3 representatives of its own to the Board, one of which was given over to the Malay States (together with the-then Settlements).

^{page 240 note 24} The Rubber Smallholders Enquiry Committee was established by Federal Legislative Council resolution in October, 1948. The Committee produced a three-page Interim Report (No. 48 of 1950) in 1950 and submitted an eight-page Final Report (No. 8 of 1952) two years later.

^{page 240 note 25} Khoo Teik Ee, L.C. Proc. 20 March 1952.

^{page 240 note 26} L.C. Proc. 20 March 1952, addresses by Enche Nasaruddin bin Abdul Rais and Y.M Musa bin Raja Mahadi.

^{page 240 note 27} Mentri Besar (Chief Minister), Selangor,L.C. Proc. 20 March 1952.

^{page 241 note 28} On the earlier effects of colonial administrative prejudice on the discriminatory treatment of rubber estates and smallholdings, see Rudner, Martin, “Rubber Strategy for Post-War Malaya, 1945–48,” JSEAS, I:1 (March 1970), 28Google Scholaret passim.

^{page 241 note 29} On this point see Rudner, Martin, “The State and Peasant Innovation in Rural Development: The Case of Malaysian Rubber”, Asian and African Studies (1970), esp. pp. 75–85Google Scholar; and Silcock, T. H., “The Economy of Malaya”, in Hoover, C., ed. Economic Systems of the Commonwealth (Durham, N.C., 1961)Google Scholar.

^{page 241 note 30} Although allowed as a tax deduction for estate companies, it can be argued in economic terms that the cost of replanting should actually be treated as new investment. Replanting is, to be sure, essential to the survival of the plantation, however it represents the investment of current earnings to retrieve historic costs (the normal attrition of rubber trees), rather than a cost ofcurrent output. Plantations that replant without new borrowing therefore replace assets of little worth with assets of greater value, out of current earnings. See Silcock, T.H., chairman, “Rubber Industry Arbitration Board Report”, L.C. Paper no. 59 of 1949, col. 15–16Google Scholar.

^{page 242 note 31} Mudie Mission Report paras. 30, 31. At the relatively high price of M$l a pound the replanting cess yielded only 1.8 cents; at under 60 cents a pound it vanished altogether.

^{page 242 note 32} Ibid.

^{page 242 note 33} Heah Joo Seng, L.C. Proc. 7 Oct. 1954.

^{page 242 note 34} Sydney Palmer, Chairman's address to Rubber Grower Association general meeting, 1 May 1953.

^{page 242 note 35} Rubber Industry Replanting Ordinance, No. 8 of 1952, Art. 4 Smallholders’ Fund B was to be managed by its own board composed of the five smallholders representatives from the Replanting Fund Board, which held overall responsibility; together with the Member for Economic Affairs and Director of Agriculture, both colonial expatriate officials; and a representative of the State and Settlement governments, the Keeper of the Rulers Seal, a Malay aristocrat.

^{page 242 note 36} Federal Government suggestions that it undertake block replanting for smallholdings were rejected by the Malay States and Settlements, while another proposal for cooperative smallholder block replanting failed to attract sufficient support from the various authorities. Vid. Final Report of the Rubber Smallholders Enquiry Committee, paras. 43–5.

^{page 242 note 37} Annual Report of the Rubber Industry (Replanting) Board, L.C. Paper 53 of 1954.

^{page 242 note 38} The actual adjudication of Fund B applications was delegated by the Board to Replanting Officers in each State and Settlement.

^{page 243 note 39} Final Report of the Rubber Smallholders Enquiry Committee, para 19; on the size distribution of Malayan smallholdings at the time see the Rubber Statistics Handbook (1952), Table 28ii.

^{page 243 note 40} Mudie Mission Report, para 69; See also Lim Chong Yah, “The Malayan Rubber Replanting Taxes”, 49–52 and Tan, A.H.H., “The Incidence of Export Taxes on Small Producers”, Malayan Economic Review (April 1967), 97Google Scholar, on the matter of pseudo-subdivided estates’ exploitation of the higher Fund B replanting grants.

^{page 243 note 41} Mudie Mission Report, para 68. On the standards of maintenance required by the replanting authorities for continuation of the grant, which was paid by instalments over time, see the Federation of Malaya Annual Report, 1954 p. 136.

^{page 243 note 42} A.H.H. Tan, “The Incidence of Rubber Taxes in Malaya,” 97; and M. Rudner, The State and Peasant Innovation in Rural Development: The Case of Malayan Rubber, p.83. The extent to which the replanting scheme represented a form of regressive taxation on smallholders may be seen in the cumulative excess of Fund B revenues over disbursements, which totalled over M$76 million at the end of 1956 (when new policies were about to be introduced); vid. Annual Report of the Rubber Industry (Replanting) Board for 1956, L.C. Paper 58 of 1957, p. 5Google Scholar. The 41/2 cents a pound additional cess proved an especially heavy burden imposed only on small-holders, and not estates, even when rubber prices were low and the ordinary Schedule II cess declined or was removed.

^{page 243 note 43} The Replanting Scheme for Smallholdings envisaged the replanting of 40,000, 50,000 and 60,000 acres in 1953, 1954, 1955, respectively; actual smallholding replanting for these years was only 29,500, 22,600, and 25,300 acres, totalling 77,400 acres out of the 150,000 acre target: Rubber Statistics Handbook (1957), Table 12 (amended figures).

^{page 244 note 44} Vid. Interim Report of the Rubber Smallholders Enquiry Committee, para 10.

^{page 244 note 45} Member for Agriculture and Forestry,L. C. Proc. 20 March 1952.

^{page 244 note 46} Ibid.

^{page 244 note 47} Cf. Mentri Besar, Selangor,L.C. Proc. 20 March 1952; J.C. Mathison, L.C. Proc, 20 March 1952 and 26 November 1953. Mr. Mathison, an appointed representative of rubber estate interests, wanted government policy to promote smallholder replanting with crops having “greater stability and more security of income than natural rubber” (emphasis mine), though no such alternative crop offered a potential incomelevel even equal to rubber, as the estates themselves were aware.

^{page 244 note 48} Member for Economic Affairs,L.C. Proc. 25 November 1953.

^{page 244 note 49} Federation of Malaya Annual Report, 1955, p. 142. By 1955,7,674 acres had been replanted with other crops, and 78,891 with rubber, under Fund B.

^{page 244 note 50} International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The Economic Development of Malaya (Singapore, 1954), p. 34Google Scholar. (Henceforward: IBRD Report).

^{page 244 note 51} IBRD Report, p. 40; Mudie Mission Report, para 87; see also M. Rudner, “A Reply to P.T. Bauer's Comment on Post-War Malayan Rubber Policy”, p. 302.

^{page 245 note 52} IBRD Report, p. 40;Mudie Mission Report, para 87.

^{page 245 note 53} Mudie Mission Report, para 84.

^{page 245 note 54} On this point and its impact on agricultural and rubber policies, respectively, see Rudner, Martin, “Malayan Quandary: Rural Development Policy Under the First and Second Five-Year Plans”, Contributions to Asian Studies (1971), esp. pp. 193–197Google Scholar; and M. Rudner, “A Reply to P.T. Bauer's Comment on Post-War Malayan Rubber Policy”, 302.

^{page 245 note 55} See T.H. Silcock, “The Economy of Malaya”, p. 338.

^{page 245 note 56} Federation of Malaya Annual Report, 1955, p. 168.

^{page 245 note 57} Member for Economic Affairs, L.C. Proc. 20 March 1953. It is difficult to imagine natural rubber cultivation, as a cash crop with a lengthy (35 years) productive life and liable to subsequent replanting, being prone to ‘shifting cultivation’.

^{page 245 note 58} Federation of Malaya Annual Report, 1955,p. 143. The main areas of illicit rubber planting were Kedah, Perlis and Johore.

^{page 246 note 59} Federation of Malaya, , Taxation and Replanting in the Rubber Industry (Kuala Lumpur, 1955), p. 17Google Scholar.

^{page 246 note 60} Rubber Statistics Handbook, (1952), Table 28ii. Chinese smallholders tended to predominate on medium size holdings.

^{page 246 note 61} Cf. Mudie Mission Report, para. 124.

^{page 246 note 62} Cf. IBRD Report, pp. 54–6; and Bauer, P.T., “Malayan Rubber Policy” in Silcock, T.H., ed. Reading in Malayan Economics (Singapore, 1961), pp. 306–7Google Scholar, on this point.

^{page 247 note 63} T.B. Barlow, chairman's address to Highlands and Lowlands Para Rubber Co. Ltd. general meeting, 27 May 1953.

^{page 247 note 64} Sir Sydney Palmer, Rubber Growers Association general meeting, 1 May 1953.

^{page 247 note 65} Mudie Mission Report, paras 7, 15.

^{page 247 note 66} Taxation and Replanting in the Rubber Industry, pp. 6–7.

^{page 247 note 67} G.M. Knocker, Rubber Estates appointee, L.C. Proc. 10 November 1954.

^{page 247 note 68} Taxation and Replanting in the Rubber Industry, published in April, 1955, with the general elections scheduled for August.

^{page 247 note 69} Mudie Mission Report, para 28.

^{page 248 note 70} Member for Economic Affairs, L.C. Proc. 4 May 1955.

^{page 248 note 71} Taxation and Replanting in the Rubber Industry, pp. 6–7.

^{page 248 note 72} Member for Economic Affairs, L.C. Proc. 4 May 1955.

^{page 248 note 73} L.C. Proc. 10 December 1958.

^{page 248 note 74} Minister of Agriculture and Cooperatives, L.C. Proc. 7 Dec. 1957.

^{page 248 note 75} Dewan Ra'ayat (House of Representatives), Proceedings, 28 May 1963.

^{page 249 note 76} Member for Economic Affairs, L. C. Proc. 4 May 1955.

^{page 249 note 77} See the Minister of Commerce and Industry's review of replanting policy, Malaya (April 1963), pp. 9–10.

^{page 249 note 78} For a study of the Five Five-Year Plan and its place in modern Malaysian economic history, see Rudner, Martin, Nationalism, Planning and Economic Modernization in Malaysia: The Politics of Beginning Development (Beverly Hills, Calif., 1975)Google Scholar, and Gayl D. Ness, Bureaucracy and Rural Development in Malaysia, esp. chap. 3.

^{page 250 note 79} H.B Husey, L.C. Proc. 5 May 1955.

^{page 250 note 80} Sir John Hay, chairman's address to United Sua Betong Rubber Estates Co. Ltd., annual general meeting, 8 June 1955.

^{page 250 note 81} Ibid.

^{page 250 note 82} Cf. J.K. Swaine, chairman's address to Padang Senang Rubber Ltd., annual meeting, 21 March 1956, and to the Perak Rubber Plantations Ltd. annual meeting, 27 October 1955, where he denounced the ‘false assumption that rubber trees are economically finished by their 30th year, a fallacy which is amply exposed by yields on this Company's fine old property… This Company will certainly cling to its 36 and 42 year old trees ’ so long as they continue to give fair yields per tapper. ‘Modern planting methods rely on yield per acre rather than on yield per tapper, but all who have piloted estates through the two great slumps of 1921 and the early thirties know that it is the latter that counted during the lean years. ’

^{page 250 note 83} See G.M. Knocker, L.C. Proc. 5 May 1955.

^{page 250 note 84} The annual average rate of estate replanting reached 72.7 thousand acres between 1956 and 1960, compared to only 45.1 thousand acres between 1950 and 1955;Rubber Statistics Handbook (1960), Table 13.

^{page 250 note 85} See C. D. Shearn, address to Rubber Growers Association annual meeting, 9 May 1958; Sir Eric MacFadyen, chairman's report to London Asiatic Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd, annual general meeting, 20 June 1960.

^{page 251 note 86} On this point, see also Corden, W.M., ‘Prospects for Malayan Exports ’, in Silcock, T.H. & Fisk, E. K., eds., The Political Economy of Independent Malaya (Canberra, 1963), p. 95.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 87} Rubber Statistics Handbook (1960), Table 6. TheStraits Budget (Singapore) of 12 October 1960 gives the figures of 600 estates totalling 160,000 that defaulted on replanting.

^{page 251 note 88} On smallholders' comparative advantages in natural rubber production, see P.T. Bauer, Malayan Rubber Policy, pp. 306–7.

^{page 251 note 89} Minister for Economic Affairs, L.C. Proc, 3 December 1955.

^{page 251 note 90} See Dato Sir Clough Thuraisingham, L. C. Proc. 6 December 1955.

^{page 251 note 91} Cf. Minister of Commerce and Industry, Tan Siew Sin, L. C. Proc. 7 December 1957.

^{page 251 note 92} The MCSA, set up in February, 1956, was assured of Federal Government financial support for the first five years, as the Association was regarded by the newly-elected Government as an integral part of its rubber development policy. Previous attempts to form a national association of smallholders out of their representatives on the Rubber Producers Council were all stillborne, mainly for reasons of finance. Cf. Minister of Commerce and Industry, L.C. Proc. 14 November 1956.

^{page 252 note 93} Minister of Commerce and Industry, L.C. Proc. 7 December 1957; Federation of Malaya, Report of the Subdivision of Estates Committee, Cmd. 29 of 1963, pp. 96–7.

^{page 252 note 94} Minister of Commerce and Industry, L.C. Proc. 22 April 1959; Chief Replanting Officer, Straits Times (Singapore), 28 September 1961.

^{page 252 note 95} Second Five-Year Plan, 1961–65 (Kuala Lumpur, 1961), para. 25.

^{page 253 note 96} Ibid, para 5.

^{page 253 note 97} Mudie Mission Report, para 115.

^{page 253 note 98} Member for Economic Affairs, L.C. Proc. 4 May 1955; see alsoTaxation and Replanting in the Rubber Industry.

^{page 253 note 99} Mentri Besar, Selangor, L.C. Proc. 6 March 1957.

^{page 253 note 100} Mentri Besar, Negri Sembilan, L.C. Proc. 13 December 1957.

^{page 254 note 101} SeeL.C. Proc, addresses by Yap Kim Hock, (Smallholders Association of Malaya), 3 December 1955; and S.N King (rubber estates), 13 November 1956.

^{page 254 note 102} See Enche Abdul Jalil, L.C. Proc. 13 December 1957.

^{page 254 note 103} Enche Abdul Ghafar, L.C. Proc, 6 March 1957.

^{page 254 note 104} Enche Ibrahim Fikri, L.C. Proc. 3 December 1955.

^{page 254 note 105} For a study on the emergence of a development goal in Malaya following the transfer of power to the elected, nationalist government, see Gayl D. Ness, Bureaucracy and Rural Development in Malaysia, chaps 1 –4; and Martin Rudner, Nationalism, Planning and Economic Modernization in Malaysia.

^{page 254 note 106} On FLDA and its attendant social and economic policies, goals and performances, see Ness, Bureaucracy and Rural Development in Malaysia, chaps 5–8; Syed Hussain Wafa, “Land Development Strategies in Malaysia: An Empirical Study”, Kajian Ekonomi Malaysia(December, 1972), 1–28; and Martin Rudner, The State and Peasant Innovation in Rural Development, pp. 88–96.

^{page 254 note 107} Report of the Working Party Set up to Consider the Development of New Areas for Land Settlement in the Federation of Malaya, L.C. Paper No. 11 of 1956, para 91. (Henceforward: Report of the Land Settlement Working Party).Google Scholar

^{page 254 note 108} Second Five-Year Plan, para. 29.

^{page 255 note 109} Average settler debt to FLDA was approximately M$7,228, or more than three years' net income, by the time the land reached full production; see Minister of Natural Resources, D. R. Proc, 26 April 1962. However, the FLDA schemes tapped for the first time in 1963 yielded anaverage gross monthly family income of MS317, or M$197 net after deduction of production costs, including taxes, and loan repayments: Colombo Plan Annual Report, 1963 (London, 1964), Cmd. 2529, p. 157.Google Scholar This compared well with the average rural Malay monthly income for 1957 was only MS128, and which, if anything, would have declined with the continued adversity affecting Malaya's rice economy by 1963; seeHousehold Budget Survey of the Federation of Malaya, 1957–8 (Kuala Lumpur, 1958).Google Scholar

^{page 255 note 110} Tan Siew Sin, L. C. Proc, 6 March 1957.

^{page 255 note 111} Tan Siew Sin, Minister of Commerce and Industry, address to the Annual Installation of the Seremban Rotary Club, 5 July 1958(Straits Times).

^{page 255 note 112} Minister of Rural Development, D.R. Proc, 28 May 1963.

^{page 255 note 113} On the Kelantan scheme, see D. Ali, "Kelantan's unique go-it-alone Plan", Straits Budget(14 Dec. 1960); Martin Rudner, The State and Peasant Innovation in Rural Development, p. 91, passim; Wafa, Land Development Strategies in Malaya.

^{page 256 note 114} In addition to the literature cited elsewhere in this article, valuable material on the Malayan Rubber economy during the 1950s and afterwards may be found in, Bee, Ooi Jin, “The Rubber Industry of the Federation of Malaya”, Journal of Tropical Geography (June, 1961), pp. 46–65;Google ScholarGreenwood, “Rubber Smallholdings in the Federation of Malaysia”, Journal of Tropical Geography (Aug., 1964), 81–100Google Scholar; McHale, T.R., “Natural Rubber and Malaysian Economic Development”, Malayan Economic Review (April, 1965), 16–43Google Scholar; —“Rubber Smallholdings in Malaysia; their changing nature, role and prospects—, Malayan Economic Review(Oct. 1965), 35–48Google Scholar; —Rubber and the Malayan Economy (Singapore, 1967)Google Scholar; Jackson, J. C., “Small Holding Rubber Cultivation, 1955–62”Google Scholar, Oriental Geographer (1965), 33–40, Tan Sri Lim Swee Aun, Rubber and the Malaysian Economy (Athens, Ohio, 1969).Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 115} A total of 290 estates, of 231,800 acres, were subdivided during this period. As independence approach British investors became “somewhat anxious” of their holdings in Malaya: P. B. L. Coughlin, report to Anglo-Malayan Rubber Plantations Ltd. annual meeting, 4 December 1956. Some leading estate groups began to disinvest through capital redistributions and dividend increases which were admittedly unjustified by current earnings; Sir John Hay, reports to the general meetings of United Sua Betong Rubber Estates Co. Ltd., 12 June 1957; Kamuning (Perak) Rubber and Tin Co. Ltd., 28 November 1957; Linggi Plantations Ltd., 27 March 1958; P.T. Barlow, report to Highlands and Lowlands Para Rubber Co. Ltd. annual meeting, 5 June 1957. Such disinvestment was calculated to reduce these companies capital commitment in independent Malaya “lest the possession of ample funds … be made the pretext for further exactions” Sir John Hay, report to Linggi Plantations Ltd. general meeting, 30 March 1955. On the other side of the coin there were British planters who deprecated suggestions of economic withdrawal from Malaya, arguing that the Malayan nationalists were committed to “a firm and just Government determined to maintain law and order … (and) … sound economic conditions … (as an)… antidote to agents of disruption” see Sir Eric Miller, report to Petaling Rubber Estates Ltd. annual meeting, 4 April 1956. See also theInterim Report of the Subdivision of Estates Committee, Cmd. 15 of 1961, pp. 4–6.

^{page 257 note 116} Report No. CFLM 65/57 (N.D., 1957), reproduced in theReport of the Subdivisional Estates Committee, General Appendix 1. The Committee commented in its Report: “Either the Committee (i.e. the Working Party) was incompetent in relation to its tasks, or it deliberately overlooked certain facts for motives that need not be the concern of this report”. See also Aziz, Ungku, “Land Disintegration and Land Policy in Malaya”, Malayan Economic Review (April 1958)Google Scholar.

^{page 257 note 117} Economic Advisor, L.C. Proc. 12 December 1958.

^{page 257 note 118} D.R. Proc, 23 February 1960, addresses by the Minister of Finance (Tan Siew Sin) and Minister of External Affairs.

^{page 257 note 119} Minister of Labour, D.R. Proc. 23 February 1960.

^{page 257 note 120} See Assistant Minister of Rural Development, D.R. Proc, 23 February 1960. Emphasis mine, M. R.

^{page 258 note 121} See theReport of the Subdivision of Estates Committee, pp. 99–106, for the effect of subdivision on labour.

^{page 258 note 122} D.R. Proc. 23 February 1960, addresses by V. David, V. Veerappen, K. Karam Singh.

^{page 258 note 123} Interim Report of the Subdivision of Estates Committee, para 32.

^{page 258 note 124} Minister of Rural Development, D.R. Proc. 9 August 1960.

^{page 258 note 125} Final Report of the Subdivision of Estates Committee, p. 124.

^{page 258 note 126} See for example, the Minority Report attached to the Final Report; theStraits Timeseditorial, 15 August 1963, and the Rubber Producers Council statement(Straits Times, 16 August 1963), all taking exceptions to the findings and conclusions of the Final Report.

^{page 258 note 127} Final Report of the Subdivision of Estates Committee, p. 14 and Chapter V.

^{page 259 note 128} Ibid. p. 92–95

^{page 259 note 129} Thus by 1970, smallholding production reached 48–6 of total peninsular Malaysian output, as their high-yielding trees on the replanting and new planting schemes of the late 1930s, early 1960s, came under full tapping;Second Malaysia Plan 1971–1975 (Kuala Lumpur, 1971), para. 335