The term ‘plural society’ was first initiated by FurnivallJ.S.; see his Colonial Policy and Practice: A Comparative Study of Burma and Netherlands India, New York University Press, New York, 1956. Furnivall argued that the ‘plural society’ in which two or more races were essentially a modern phenomenon, created by Western powers. He contended that a ‘plural society’ lacked a common ’social will’ which was essential for holding together the various races. According to him, in plural societies the only interest that kept together the various races was economic interest. He wrote: “Each group holds its own religion, its own culture and language, its own ideas and ways. As individuals they meet, but only in market place…” (FurnivallJ.S., Ibid., p. 304). This concept later generated a great deal of interest and controversy. M.G. Smith, for example, further expanded Furnivall’s concept and introduced the concept of“cultural pluralism”, (see SmithM.G., “Social and Cultural Pluralism”, Annals of the New York Academy Sciences. Vol. 83, January1960, p. 767). For detailed analysis of his concept of ‘Social and Cultural Pluralism’, see hisThe Plural Society in the British West Indies, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1965.
2.
The term Malaya, Malay. Malayan, Malaysian and Malaysia are often loosely used and therefore the cause of confusion. Here they will be employed in their accepted meanings, which are as follows: “Malaya” refers to the geographical areas of the Malay peninsula (the nine Malay states plus Penang and Malacca). Malays are defined by law as the traditional subjects of the Sultans, and the people whose native tongue is the Malay language and whose religion is Islam. “Malayan” used as a noun refers to someone who is a permanent resident of Malaya, regardeless of race. The term “Malaysian” formerly was applied to any of the Malay-lndonesian ethnic stock peoples indigenous to the Malay peninsula or insular Southeast Asia. More recently it has assumed a more restricted meaning, embracing only the inhabitants of the Federation of Malalysia, namely. Malaya, Sarawak, Sabah and (for a time) Singapore, (see MeansGordon P.. Malaysian Politics. Hoddor and Stoughton, London, 1976, p. 13).
3.
4.
Far Eastern Economic Review, 7June1990. p. 17.
5.
Ibid., p. 18.
6.
Ibid., p. 18.
7.
AlamgirJalal, “Formula and Fortune: Economic Development in Malaysia”, Journal of Contemporary Asia (Philippines). Vol. 24, No. 1, 1994, p. 72.
8.
MilneR.S., “The Politics of Malaysia’s New Economic Policy”, Pacific Affairs, Vol. 49, No. 2, Summer1976, p. 245.
9.
For details see SivalingamG., “The New Economic Policy and the Differential Economic Performance of the Races in West Malaysia”, in NashManning (ed.), Economic Performance in Malaysia: The Insiders view, World Peace Academy, New York, 1988.
10.
New Straits Times, 4August1975.
11.
BandyopadhyayaKalyani, Political Economy of Non-alignment: Indonesia and Malaysia, South Asian Publishers, New Delhi, 1990, p. 142.
12.
Ibid., p. 143.
13.
Far Eastern Economic Review, 21December1995, p. 26.
