Kampung Rules: Landscape and the Contested Government of Urban(e) Malayness - NUS
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Urban Studies, Vol. 39, No. 9, 1685– 1701, 2002
Kampung Rules: Landscape and the
Contested Government of Urban(e) Malayness
Tim Bunnell
[Paper rst received, December 2001; in nal form, February 2002]
Summary. Kampung (‘village’) habits and traits have been widely invoked in ‘explanations’ of
inappropriate urban conduct among Malays in Malaysia. State-sponsored rural– urban migration
for Malays from the 1970s was bound up with a conception of urbanisation as a remedy for the
supposedly socioeconomically debilitating effects of kampung life. Yet many such migrants,
especially in the national capital, Kuala Lumpur, came to live in squatter kampungs. A dominant
Malay nationalist rationality of government has long understood squatter settlements as a failure
of attempts to urbanise the Malay. Even when squatters are relocated to public ats, ‘kampung
values’ have been invoked to account for inappropriate social conduct. However, kampung norms
and forms are increasingly drawn upon in authoritative conceptions of Malay and even
Malaysian urbanity. ‘Kampung rules’ for Kuala Lumpur’s physical and moral landscape are
shown to emerge from the contested government of urban(e) Malayness.
1. Introduction
In May 1997, a 27-year-old technical assist- squatters to life in modern high-rise blocks:
ant was killed by a brick thrown from block on 31 May, another front-page report in-
94 of the Putra Ria apartments on Jalan cluded the sub-heading, ‘kampung habits die
Bangsar, Kuala Lumpur. The front cover of hard’ and noted that
the English language daily Malay Mail on 30
although it has been nearly a year since
May featured this ‘murder’ and called for an
they were relocated from Kampung Ab-
awareness campaign to ‘educate’ at-
dullah Hukom to the new ats, the resi-
dwellers on appropriate means of garbage
dents never really discarded their habit of
disposal (Malay Mail, 1997a).1 Around 100
indiscriminate rubbish dumping (Malay
of the low– medium cost ats are occupied by
Mail, 1997b).
former residents of the adjacent Kampung
Haji Abdullah Hukom squatter settlement Kampung (‘village’) habits and traits have
and they are concentrated in block 94 (see been widely invoked in ‘explanations’ of
Figure 1).2 The incident was interpreted in inappropriate urban conduct among Malays
both the Malay- and English-language press in Malaysia. State-sponsored rural– urban mi-
in terms of the maladaptation of former gration for Malays from the 1970s was
Tim Bunnell is in the Department of Geography, National University of Singapore , 1 Arts Link, Kent Ridge, Singapor e 117570.
Fax: (65) 777 3091 E-mail: geotgb@nus.edu.sg . The author is grateful for comments on earlier drafts of this paper from three
anonymous referees, Deborah Martin and, in particular , Goh Beng Lan who acted as discussant at the workshop at the National
University of Singapor e where it was presented in June 2001. The author has not been able to meet all the suggestion sfrom her thorough
review. The cartographi c work of Lee Li Kheng is also gratefully acknowledged .
0042-098 0 Print/1360-063 X On-line/02/091685-17 Ó 2002 The Editors of Urban Studies
DOI: 10.1080/0042098022015172 71686 TIM BUNNELL
Figure 1. Putra Ria Flats, block 94 (author’s photograph).
founded on a conception of urbanisation as a Malay subjects in relation to a problematics
remedy for the supposedly socioeconomi- of kampung. I draw upon the burgeoning
cally debilitating effects of kampung life. Yet governmentality literature (Foucault, 1991;
many such migrants, especially in and see Dean, 1999; and Rose, 1999, for recent
around the national capital, Kuala Lumpur, overviews) to analyse attempts to (re)shape
came to live in squatter kampungs. The no- individual and collective Malay conduct.
menclature is signi cant: for city authorities, Successive governmental strategies, from the
‘kampung’ signi es anti-urbanity. The very state promotion of Malay rural– urban mi-
continued existence of the squatter settlement gration to the construction of low-cost public
represents the failure of state attempts to ats for the rehousing of squatter settlements,
urbanise the Malay and is an eyesore on have impacted upon the landscape of the
Kuala Lumpur’s globally oriented cityscape. federal capital. This leads on to a second aim
In addition, as press coverage of the block 94 which concerns combining insights from
incident demonstrates, squatters who have ‘governmentality’ with work on landscape in
been relocated to modern public ats are said cultural geography. If landscape, for cultural
to have taken their ‘kampung values’ with geographers, has been understood as both a
them. Kampung has long been more than ‘work’ and as something that ‘does work’
merely an undesirable space in, or feature of, (Mitchell, 2000, p. 94), this does not of
the Malaysian urban landscape; it denotes course imply a simple reversion to environ-
those attributes, attitudes and modes of con- mental determinism. Rather, David Matless
duct deemed unsuitable for urban(e) life and (1994, p. 129), for example, has considered
for citizens of a would-be ‘fully developed’ environmental ‘practices of the self’: how
nation. 3 individuals sustain and remake themselves
The aims of this paper are two-fold. First, through their environment, which they in
it seeks to elaborate the government of turn recon gure.4 A process of landscape(d)KAMPUNG RULES 1687
subjecti cation implies the existence of ‘cul- sketches the emergence of a discursive for-
tural authorities’—a term extending beyond mation in which it became possible to visual-
‘the state’ and other conventional concep- ise and to know ‘the Malay’ (and
tions of political power—which shape con- ‘Malayness’) as a coherent object/subject to
ceptions of appropriate land use, ‘moral be governed and as one in need of new forms
geographies’ (Matless, 1998). In this way, of government. In particular, section 2 con-
landscape is understood normatively: the siders how, within a politically dominant
way in which ideas about what is right and Malay nationalist rationality of government,
appropriate are ‘transmitted through space kampung came to denote a ‘problematics of
and place’ (Cresswell, 1996, p. 8). Malayness’. This rationalised successive
The persistence of city kampungs and pu- governmental strategies oriented towards the
tatively ‘kampung conduct’ reveals both the ‘urbanisation’ of Malayness. The third sec-
limits and the limitations of the authoritative tion then considers the translation of this
urban(e) code in contemporary Kuala rationality into the contested landscape of
Lumpur. On the one hand, it is precisely contemporary Kuala Lumpur and to Kam-
those spaces and social practices deemed pung Haji Abdullah Hukom—Putra Ria in
‘out of place’ that make known the particular. Not only is kampung ‘out of
boundaries of what is acceptable. Trangres- place’ in an increasingly image-conscious,
sion is thus ‘diagnostic’ of the normative globally oriented national capital, but sup-
landscape (see Cresswell, 2000). On the posedly ‘kampung acts’ transgress authoritat-
other hand, the very fact of individual and ive conceptions of appropriate city conduct.
collective transgressive acts attests to the In revealing ‘urban(e) limits’, kampung thus
limits of the effectiveness of the normalising also brings into view the hegemonic moral
governmental power of landscape. While order and ‘appropriate’ relations for individ-
governmentality is characterised by a belief uals with their environment and with each
that ever-new strategies, techniques and tech- other. The fourth section then takes a closer
nologies can ameliorate society and set prob- look at the contested emergence of a norma-
lematic conduct in desired directions, tive urban landscape. Somewhat paradoxi-
government is a “congenitally failing oper- cally, ‘kampung’ is increasingly prominent in
ation” (Miller and Rose, 1990, p. 18). As an the norms and forms of urban(e) develop-
“applied art” (Dean, 1994, p. 187), govern- ment in Malaysia. This points to the inade-
ment is also inevitably bound up with contest quacy of conceptions of kampung as
and competition among individuals and everyday ‘resistance’ to a hegemonic devel-
groups. The governmentality literature high- opmentalist rationality of government (see
lights ways in which on-going contestation Chua, 1995). The paper concludes by consid-
(re)constitutes rationalities through which ering the broader signi cance of this form of
(self-)government takes place. The on-going analysis for the meaning of ‘contest’ in a
failure and problematisation of practices of rapidly changing Asian city landscape as
government, in other words, gives rise to a well as the implications of emerging ‘kam-
reworking of rationality which is itself a pung rules’ for Kuala Lumpur’s urban popu-
source of future political inventiveness lation, especially its poorer members.
(Dean, 1994). In sum: “our present has arisen
as much from the logics of contestation as
2. Kampung as Problematic of Malayness
from any imperatives of control” (Rose,
1999, p. 277). This includes the landscape, How did the Malay(s) become known as an
shaped by and shaping contestation. object and subject of government? ‘Malay-
This paper considers how ‘contested land- ness’ as a political category is a colonial
scapes’ might be reconceptualised in terms construction. ‘Malay’ was one of three broad
of an analytics of government. It is divided ethnic categories—the other two being ‘Chi-
into three main sections. The next section nese’ and ‘Indian’—cemented through the1688 TIM BUNNELL
nature of British colonial economic develop- Malayness the need for reformation through
ment and the evolving labour market. The governmental intervention. The political as-
colonial economy also promoted a spatial cendancy of this Malay nationalist mode of
divide which mutually reinforced ethnic or thinking was marked by Abdul Razak’s take-
racial distinctions. For the most part, Malays over as Prime Minister and UMNO President
lived in rural kampungs (‘villages’); Indians (Shamsul, 1996) as well as by the far
worked on the British plantation estates; and stronger role of UMNO in the new Barisan
the Chinese on smaller plantations and in the Nasional (‘National Front’) coalition than in
mines. Given that a number of tin mining the Alliance which it replaced.5 Secondly,
areas, including parts of what is now Kuala and relatedly, new modes of government
Lumpur, subsequently became nodes for ur- were founded on a belief in the possibility of
ban development, this colonial division later intervention—setting Malay conduct in de-
manifested itself as one of a generalised Chi- sired directions. In his polemical book, The
nese urban, versus Malay and Indian rural, Malay Dilemma, (now Prime Minister) Dr
inhabitation (Sioh, 1998). Mahathir Mohamad combined an environ-
The post-independence Alliance govern- mental determinist account of Malay ‘back-
ment not only inherited colonial construc- wardness’ vis-à-vis the Chinese with
tions of ethnic groups or communities as understandings from evolutionary biology.
knowable entities, but also shared the col- Thus, on the one hand,
onial administration’s prejudices against—
If we want to examine the development of
and conception of appropriate means of
the Malays in Malaya we must rst study
ruling—the Malays. For the aristocratic,
the geography of Malaya and determine its
British-educated rst Prime Minister of
effects on them (Mahathir, 1970, p. 20).
Malaysia, Tungku Abdul Rahman, rural
Malays were poor, but nonetheless happy On the other hand, the supposedly debilitat-
and contented. Development, he argued, ing effects of Malay heredity and environ-
might actually make the rural poor dis- ment can be overcome by a “systematic and
gruntled: “My experience tells me that every- co-ordinated orientation of the Malays to-
body wants to continue to live the life they wards progress” (Mahathir, 1970, p. 113).6 If
have been living” (quoted in Sardar, 2000, British colonialism constructed ‘Malayness’,
p. 163). Laissez-faire policies more then increasingly powerful Malay nationalist
broadly—particularly in the economic do- political thought rendered it in need of re-
main—played into the hands of British capi- habilitation.
talist interests. Limited domestic partici- ‘Kampung’ featured prominently in this
pation in the national economy continued to problematics of Malayness and resultant new
be predominantly ‘non-Malay’, and es- governmental prescriptions. In The Malay
pecially Chinese. Re ecting the locus of the Dilemma, the Malay kampung (‘village’) is
electoral support of the United Malays Na- singled out as the locus for ‘primitive’ social
tional Organisation (UMNO), what interven- practices and values: ‘Malay partiality to-
tionist state initiatives did exist focused on wards inbreeding’ (Mahathir, 1970) in the
rural development (Gomez and Jomo, 1997). kampungs is contrasted not only with the
The early 1970s saw the political crystal- Chinese—whose ‘custom decreed that mar-
lisation of distinct new aims and means of riage should not be within the same clan’
Malay government. These certainly shared (Mahathir, 1970)—but also with ‘town
colonial and Alliance government prejudices Malays’ who intermarried with Indian Mus-
about the Malay as ‘lazy native’ (see Alatas, lims and Arabs. Related to this is a spatial
1977), but also differed in (at least) two dimension to Mahathir’s understanding of
ways. First, Malayness was labelled prob- Malay “exclusion from the commercial life
lematic. A new generation of Malay political of the country” (Mahathir, 1970, p. 37). Not-
leaders saw in colonial characterisations of ing the “importance of urbanization in theKAMPUNG RULES 1689
progress of a community” (pp. 79– 80), he the 1970s, 9 of which were free trade zones
argues that the colonial economy condemned (FTZs). Export-oriented manufacturing sub-
Malays to static, backward, rural areas. sidiaries of foreign transnational corporations
Malay ‘backwardness’, then, is, in part, inter- were lured to these zones on the condition
preted as a consequence of the geography of that at least 40 per cent of their workforce
colonial development and a planned pro- was bumiputera (Ong, 1981).7
gramme of Malay urbanisation is considered Rural – urban migration, however, was not
crucial if the Malays are to ‘master’ modern necessarily synonymous with Malay urbani-
ways sation. Malay rural migrants arriving in
Kuala Lumpur-Klang Valley after 1970 came
The fact of urbanisation alone involves a
to live in squatter settlements, either moving
process of physical and psychological up-
to existing squatter areas, or opening up new
rooting of the Malays from the traditional
ones on government or privately owned land
rural society. There can be no doubt that
(Syed Husin, 1997). Along the Klang Valley,
with this uprooting, old values and ways
Malay villages on the edge of former tin
of life must give way to the new (Ma-
mines, in particular, became cores of new
hathir, 1970, p. 113).
squatter settlements (Brook eld et al., 1991).
The urban is thus imagined as a potential Terry McGee’s important work in Southeast
incubator of modern Malayness, a remedy Asia in general had long posed doubts about
for pathological values of the kampung. the conventional distinction between urban
Mahathir’s conception of the bene cial ef- and rural (McGee, 1967). Certainly, many
fects of urban environment and living on Malays living in and around Kuala Lumpur
Malay conduct was echoed in subsequent in the 1960s and 1970s, including those in
state policy documents. The Second Kampung Haji Abdullah Hukom, did not t
Malaysia Plan 1971– 75 (MP2), for example, neatly into the category of ‘urban’ (McGee,
considered exposure to the “in uences of an 1976). Petempatan setinggan (‘squatter set-
urban environment” as necessary for the tlements’) are still frequently referred to sim-
modernisation of Malays (Malaysia, 1971, ply as kampungs (‘villages’) (Mohd. Razali,
p. 45). In addition to introducing modern in- 1993). Azizah Kassim (1982) traces the rst
dustries to rural areas, therefore, the plan of cial reference to ‘Malay squatters’ back
identi ed a need to develop new urban to 1966 but notes that, by the early 1980s,
growth centres in new areas and for the squatting in Kuala Lumpur had become a
migration of rural inhabitants to existing ur- predominantly ‘Malay problem’.8 It was the
ban areas (Lee, 1987). More and more city kampung or, more accurately, the squat-
Malays did become classi ed as ‘urban’ dur- ter city kampung which came to be known as
ing the MP2 period: Malays accounted for the site of a new urban problematic of
some 37.9 per cent of the total urban popu- Malayness.
lation by 1980 as compared with only 27.6 in City kampungs have been rendered prob-
1970 (Malaysia, 1983, p. 21). More than lematic by a diversity of ‘experts’ ranging
two-thirds of the rural– urban migrants during from state policy-makers and international
the 1970s were Malays (Mohd. Razali, agencies to academics and religious authori-
1989). The Malay rural– urban ‘drift’ was ties. The very continued use of the term
partly a result of ‘push factors’ such as de- ‘kampung’ in the context of UMNO-centred
creasing access to kampung land and declin- Malay nationalism signi es failed urbanisa-
ing smallholder productivity, but it was also, tion. Rather than contributing to the modern,
according to the Malaysian Home Affairs urban(e) life of the nation, Malay squatters
Minister at that time, “a deliberate … social are, at best, perceived to have brought the
engineering strategy” (quoted in Ong, 1987, village into the city. One academic report in
p. 145). Government efforts included the es- the mid 1970s, for example, noted the
tablishment of 59 industrial estates during “primitive level” of rubbish disposal at1690 TIM BUNNELL
Kampung Haji Abdullah Hukom and other have no place in Kuala Lumpur City Hall’s
predominantly Malay squatter kampungs idealised vision of the national capital (Kuala
(Pirie, 1976, p. 56). What Nooi et al. (1996, Lumpur City Hall, 1993) and attempts to
p. 133) have more recently termed the “dark (re)image the city and nation globally (Bun-
side” of the kampung refers to a wide range nell, 1999). A second problematisation con-
of supposedly ‘inadequate’ or ‘improper’ liv- cerns undesirable social conduct. Kampung
ing conditions and issues of urban poverty. Malays’ supposed maladaptation to modern,
There have been various authoritative inter- urban life is manifested in new ‘social ills’
ventions to address such problems, some, such as dadah (‘drug abuse’) and lepak
such as the so-called Sang Kancil project, (‘loa ng’) (see Malaysia, 1996). In the auth-
working through existing community organi- oritative imagination, therefore, squatter
sations (Mohd. Razali, 1989, p. 78). Yet kampungs are sites which both signify and
most in situ development has been related to propagate inappropriate Malay conduct. The
more conventional conceptions of ‘political repeated of cial goal of making Kuala
power’. Squatter kampungs form potentially Lumpur into a ‘squatter-free’ city9 is there-
signi cant vote-banks which have been won fore bound up with broader governmental
by the provision (or at least promise) of a attempts to realise Melayu Baru (the ‘new
range of basic amenities (Guinness, 1992; Malay’) through appropriate urbanisation
Yeoh, 2001). Such patronage also conferred (see Muhammad, 1993). City Hall’s stated
some protection against eviction and demo- policy is, “to resettle the squatters into
lition which were the initial focus of post- planned residential environment [sic] with all
1970 urban managerial strategies. In fact, in modern amenities and facilities” (Mokhtar,
situ governmental interventions such as Sang 1993, p. 17).
Kancil were responses to recognition of the The proliferation of low-cost high-rise
dif culty of resettlement and rehousing, par- blocks in the Kuala Lumpur cityscape thus
ticularly with regard to the generation of represents a programme of modernist regen-
suf cient public funds (Mohd. Razali, 1989). eration which may be considered moral as
This policy preference has changed again as much as infrastructural. The choice of high-
kampung has increasingly been considered rise ats as the appropriate solution to the
‘out of place’ in the moral landscape of ‘squatter problem’ in Kuala Lumpur, as else-
Malaysia’s main metropolitan centre. where, of course, is to a large extent deter-
mined by cost (see Morshidi et al., 1999).
Nonetheless, as technologies of government,
these landscape artefacts are intended as
3. Urban(e) Limits
means to Malay urbanity. Referring to the
The problematisation of kampung in the city process of squatter ‘modernisation’, the
landscape in the 1990s remained a matter of Deputy-Director in City Hall’s Economic
aesthetic and moral as well as of strictly Planning and Social Amenity Department
economic (or political economic) calculation. suggested that “slowly their [squatters’] atti-
Certainly, the increased urgency of squatter tudes are changed in the ats”.10 Low-cost
resettlement and the eradication of their kam- blocks are imagined as the residential equiv-
pungs are associated with rapid urbanisation alent of the high-rise of ce; architectural
and industrialisation in the Mahathir era technologies for modern practices of living
(Syed Husin, 1997). Seen from the perspec- standing alongside those for modern prac-
tive of the developmentalist Malaysian state, tices of working. The tragic incident at block
the squatter kampung has become a ‘waste of 94, however, heightened national awareness
space’ as demand for city land has risen (see of the ‘failure’ of high-rise apartment blocks
Scott, 1998). However, the inadequacy of in realising modern Malays.
such ‘economic’ explanations may be under- The completion of the three 22-storey
stood in two ways. First, squatter settlements Putra Ria apartment blocks in 1995 markedKAMPUNG RULES 1691 the culmination of a series of overlapping too expensive for a group of residents led by attempts at urban(e) regeneration in and Sri Putra at surau committee chairman, Ah- around Kampung Haji Abdullah Hukom. In mad Baba (New Straits Times, 1996). Con- the mid 1980s, squatters from around the test also included an NGO ghting for city, including Kampung Haji Abdullah squatters’ housing rights, ‘Urban Pioneers Hukom, were resettled across the Klang Support Committee’ (Jawatankuasa Sokon- River from the original settlement that dates gan Peneroka Bandar, JSPB). The term ‘ur- back to the end of the Second World War ban pioneer’ was coined to emphasise the (Sager, 1997). Resettlement at the site of important historical role that these communi- what is now the Mid-Valley development ties have played in the development of the took the form of low-cost 4-storey blocks city.15 JSPB assists and advises squatter com- and (supposedly temporary) rumah panjang munities ‘resisting’ eviction in the absence of (‘longhouses’) (see Figure 2).11 The nine 4- ‘fair’ compensation and was involved in the storey Sri Putra blocks, along with 12 blocks Kampung Haji Abdullah Hukom area from of longhouses, were in turn served an evic- the early 1990s.16 tion order in 1993 to clear the way for Mid- Resistance to resettlement at Sri Putra re- Valley, a joint venture between Kuala sulted in the City Hall cutting off water Lumpur City Hall and IGB Corporation, a supplies on 15 April 1996. The water supply property and investment holding company.12 was reportedly restored after residents visited Residents of the Sri Putra ats accounted for the mosque where the Lord Mayor attends some 552 of the 660 units at Putra Ria; a prayers on Fridays complaining that they further 8 units were allocated to squatters on were unable to perform prayers themselves the Mid-Valley site which was not part of in the absence of water for ritual ablutions.17 Kampung Haji Abdullah Hukum. The re- However, on 2 August, some 300 City Hall maining 100 of the 660 units were purchased personnel backed by two truck-loads of the by squatters directly from Kampung Haji Federal Reserve Unit arrived at the scene to Abdullah Hukum and they are concentrated evict the residents. Forceful eviction on this in block 94. 13 The squatter kampung borders occasion was only prevented by the interven- the new ats between Jalan Bangsar and the tion of local Member of Parliament, new Light Rapid Transit (LRT) track on one Shahrizat Abdul Jalil. Of the 111 families, side and the Klang River on the other side 109 agreed to move that evening, while 2 (see Figure 2). The river separates Putra refused saying that they could not afford the Ria—Kampung Haji Abdullah Hukom from offer. Demolition began on 6 August after the Mid-Valley Megamall which opened in the remaining 2 families agreed to move to November 1999 (see Figure 3). A new series Putra Ria (Singh, 1996). of access roads for ‘Asia’s largest mall’, The incident at Putra Ria ats on 31 May indeed, make pedestrian access from across 1997 is of course to be distinguished from the river virtually impossible. the opposition of former squatters to eviction Despite this spatial divide, the landscape and resettlement. This mortal transgression is provides few visible clues as to the contest not so much ‘resistance’ to an authoritative that went into its current stage of ‘regener- regime as diagnostic of broader aims and ation’. Eviction which was scheduled for De- means of government of a contested moral cember 1995 was delayed as 111 families at order. On the one hand, the incident was the Sri Putra ats refused to move to the readily narrated in terms of an existing dis- low– medium cost Putra Ria apartments. The course of undesirable kampung conduct in label ‘low– medium’ (sederhana rendah) car- the Malaysian urban landscape—‘inappropri- ried a price tag of between RM36 000 and ate’ garbage disposal, ‘backward’ values, RM41 000 depending on position and size14 ‘apathetic’ attitudes and ‘immoral’ conduct. as compared to RM 25 000 for low-cost ats On the other hand, the tragic consequences (Ghani and Lee, 1997). This was considered have elevated Putra Ria to a symbolic cen-
1692 TIM BUNNELL
Figure 2. Kampung Haji Abdullah Hukom and surrounding areas.
trality in authoritative evaluation of city con- hathir angrily rebuked Malaysians who had
duct. The ‘killer litter’ incident was the ‘turned Jalan Bukit Bintang into a dump’
de ning transgression of urban(e) limits in some three months later, the ‘high-rise litter-
the city. Thus, when Prime Minister Ma- ing’ at Putra Ria was speci cally mentionedKAMPUNG RULES 1693
Figure 3. The construction of Mid-Valley Megamall (author’s photograph).
alongside other supposed symptoms of ‘slow incident runs against previous reports on
social development’: horri c public toilets, Putra Ria in the state-owned press. Only six
illegal dumpsites, vandalism of public utili- weeks earlier, for example, the New Straits
ties and river pollution (Amry, 1997a). The Times had featured the ‘plight’ of squatters
following month it was con rmed: in terms relocating from Kampung Haji Abdullah
of vandalism and high-rise littering incidents, Hukum to Putra Ria (Hisham, 1997). This
the Putra Ria ats were ‘the worst’ in the city noted not only the crippling price of the
(New Straits Times, 1997a). ‘low– medium’ cost ats for poor squatter
Diverse explanations of problematic high- families, but also the ats’ inadequate ‘pi-
rise conduct form part of the on-going con- geon hole’ size, the lack of recreational space
tested elaboration of appropriate aims and for children and the more general poor state
means of government. On the one hand, for of repair of the buildings. One resident is
city of cials, the problem was precisely the cited as saying
lack of discipline and civic consciousness
among inhabitants of low- and low– medium- The place is in a sorry state. There are no
cost dwellings. Acknowledging the failure rubbish chutes and those living on the 22
of high-rise ats as technologies of Malay oor have to come all the way down and
modernisation, the Deputy-Director of City go up again, and when the lifts are jammed
Hall’s Planning and Social Amenity Depart- it’s such a problem. And the lifts are al-
ment complained of “problems caused by ways jammed. Then you get people throw-
undisciplined people who still live like ing their rubbish from the top oor and
they did in the kampungs”.18 Yet this ‘kam- you see cars with their windscreens
pung values’ explanation of the block 94 smashed. You see rubbish strewn all over1694 TIM BUNNELL
and we have to pay maintenance costs at four ats to prevent vandalism (The
(quoted in Hisham, 1997). Star, Metro, 1997b) and even ‘binocular
surveillance’ of errant tenants (Malay Mail,
Urban pioneer NGOs also point to inad- 1997c) by City Hall! Finally, there were calls
equate conditions in the public housing es- for more ‘liberal’ measures to induce
tates. As Syed Husin Ali, JSPB adviser, puts appropriate conduct in residents. The father
it, such housing usually consists of of the block 94 victim, for example, is re-
two or two and a half room ats in high ported as advocating “educational pro-
rise buildings between 18 and 22 stories, grammes … particularly for squatters or new
and built close to one another with poor occupants of high-rise before they are relo-
workmanship. More often than not there is cated” so that they can “adapt to the new
no playground for children. Garbage col- surroundings” (Malay Mail, 1997d). This last
lection is irregular and inef cient and soon example is crucial: Malay subjects are shown
the environment becomes polluted. These to have interiorised the rationality that con-
low cost housing areas also turn into a new structs them as in need of new forms of
slum (Syed Husin, 1998, p. 97). (self-)government on account of their ‘kam-
pung ways’. ‘Kampung folk’ seek to conduct
Contest here cannot be adequately framed in themselves within urban(e) limits.
terms of a dichotomous opposition counter-
posing state authorities and their critics.
Rather, a range of authorities including local
4. Kampung Rules
religious leaders, MPs and NGOs are actors
entangled in the contested elaboration of land Not everyone, of course, imagines kampung
(ab)use as well as means to its regeneration. as synonymous with Malay anti-citizenship
It is possible to trace previous and pro- against which urbanity is de ned. Urban
posed governmental modi cations to induce pioneer organisations valorise squatter hous-
public- at dwellers to dispense with their ing and community in opposition to the ‘pi-
‘kampung ways’. On the one hand, the ats geon holes’ and ‘arti cial society’ of public
currently being built in Kuala Lumpur are a housing. 20 JSPB volunteers point to the fact
‘third-generation’ design.19 On-going amend- that in the kampung—even in the squatter
ments to City Hall government housing kampung—houses may be built and rebuilt
estate and building design re ect a govern- according to speci c and changing needs.
mental faith that future conduct can be nely Kampung housing is thus understood literally
tuned in desired directions through modern to accommodate culture, allowing it to de-
architecture and planning as technologies velop and ourish. High-rise ats, in con-
of government. On the other hand, a range of trast, are said to consist of an inappropriate,
suggestions for new modes and methods of standardised design imposed ‘from above’.
government in the city emerged from press This provides inadequate public space for
coverage of the event at block 94. In addition cultural festivities essential for community
to a more stringent enforcement of existing well-being. Kampung community, indeed, is
regulations—one tenant was evicted for said to be dismantled once its members are
throwing a bicycle from the Sri Sabah ats in ‘put away’ in the ats. Connotations of crim-
Jalan Cheras (The Star, Metro, 1997a) and inality are more than coincidental here;21 the
there were numerous threats of court action lived consequences are said to be
against tenants who failed to pay mainte- con nement, isolation. Finally, urban pio-
nance arrears for the repair of vandalised neers no longer enjoy the fruits (and vegeta-
public utilities (New Straits Times, 1997b)— bles) of the land that they have ‘greened’ and
new surveillance technologies of (self-) regu- ‘improved’ once they are resettled. Kampung
lation were introduced. This included the here, then, denotes not modes of conduct to
installation of closed circuit television be overruled by self-discipline and/or edu-KAMPUNG RULES 1695 cation, but a rationalised preference over pung-style’ has featured prominently in land- ‘pigeonholing’ in modern ats. scaped national identity-building as However, I suggest that the seductive sim- evidenced from the entrance to Hijjas Kas- plicity of labelling these kampung imagin- turi’s Maybank Headquarters in Kuala ings as ‘resistance’ in opposition to a Lumpur. Kampung symbolism has been developmentalist authoritative rationality widely employed in both the new Federal oversimpli es the contested government of Government Administrative centre, Putra- urban Malayness. Any such dichotomy is jaya, and the recently opened Kuala Lumpur clearly untenable given the valorisation of International Airport (KLIA) (on the latter, kampung in a range of contemporary urban see Kurokawa, 1999) (see Figure 2). As re- development projects, from private-sector gionalist architects have suggested, however, condominiums to state-sponsored ‘intelligent buildings with kampung references ‘tacked cities’ under construction in Malaysia’s Mul- on’ function no differently from their mod- timedia Super Corridor (see Bunnell, forth- ernist international-style denominators (see coming). Kampung, in fact, has long Yeang, 1989). Certainly, the government of symbolised the seat of traditional Malayness, landscape cannot be reduced to the imagin- a retreat or haven from processes of capitalist ation or construction of a recognisable urban modernity. This was mobilised in the 1970s, form. Kampung is also bound up with the for example, by the Islamic dakwah move- (re)de nition and promotion of appropriate ment which called for a reaf rmation of kam- urban conduct among modern Malays. pung morality (see Kessler, 1980). The Perhaps the most prominent invocation of contemporary urban (re)valorisation of kam- kampung rules for Malay urban(e) conduct pung, however, is rather different. Its con- concerns the fostering or rekindling of neigh- cern is not with ‘traditional’ opposition or bourly interaction and a sense of ‘com- resistance to Malay modernisation, but with munity’. The convenient English translation kampung as a resource for the contested re- of the word kampung as ‘village’—denoting working of the prevailing dominant ration- a physical or administrative area—arguably ality of government. ‘Kampung’, in other misses a sense of the word as a set of rela- words, signals not the failure of govern- tions between people, a community (Sham- mental strategies for Malay urbanity, but a sul, 1988). Of cial texts on Malaysia’s new series of codes for modernity articulated in electronic federal government administrative Malay and even Malaysian terms. Kampung centre, Putrajaya, borrow (at least rhetori- rules de ne norms and forms of Malay(sian) cally) from ‘kampung’ ideas of social organ- modernity. isation. One describes how so-called These aims and means of development neighbourhood units are “designed to pro- emerge, in part, as a result of what might be mote increased social contacts and neigh- understood as the ‘identity problem’ of bourly interactions which sadly is rapidly Malaysia’s modernising urban landscape. eroding in our pursuit of material progress” Identity ‘loss’ is perhaps most frequently (Azizan, 1997, p. 3). The intended result is lamented in relation to the modern buildings “a community way of life that encourages in which an increasing proportion of Malays high moral values” (Amry, 1997b). Kampung live and work and which together constitute a is thus valorised in relation to morally prob- ‘placeless’ urban milieu. This lamentation lematic Malaysian city life characterised by a has, in fact, been prevalent since the early lack of civic consciousness and community 1980s during which time it prompted a spirit. An article in the UMNO-controlled search for Malay-centred national identity in New Straits Times, following the reported Malaysian architecture and urban design prompting of suggestions by Prime Minister (Ngiom and Tay, 2000). A common response Mahathir, called for “Malaysians migrating has been the incorporation of putatively from kampungs to urban areas to practice ‘local’ motifs into modern buildings. ‘Kam- their culture and lifestyle in their new sur-
1696 TIM BUNNELL
roundings” (Shukor Rahman, 1996, p. 8). the contested emergence and reshaping of the
Mahathir, the archetypal proponent of Malay rules of kampung government.
modernisation through urbanisation, is cred- The nostalgic marketing of kampung
ited with the following characterisation: “The should not obscure the fact that kampung
kampung lifestyle is founded on mutual help rules are oriented towards the de nition and
whereas in the urban areas even immediate realisation of Malaysian modernity (see also
neighbours do not know each other” (quoted Kahn, 1992). Three issues exemplify how the
in Shukor Rahman, 1996). The same article kampung is harnessed to modern urban(e)
thus suggested that it was “essential that development goals. First is a goal of urban
kampung traits like neighbourliness, co-oper- sustainability. The design rationale for
ation, willingness to help, gotong-royong and Malaysia’s new technopole (or ‘intelligent’
courtesy be cultivated in city living” (Shukor city), Cyberjaya (see Figure 2), cites the
Rahman, 1996). Gotong-royong (‘shared kampung as an example of a
labour’ or voluntary mutual assistance), in
landscape in which human settlement
particular, is exalted as exempli ng collec-
maintains a sustainable level of develop-
tive kampung conduct—appropriate ways of
ment, in balance with the natural environ-
dealing with one another and with ‘others’—
ment. Resource use does not exceed the
informing appropriate Malayness in the ur-
regenerative powers of the land (Federal
ban context.
Department of Town and Country Plan-
The government of landscape here extends
ning, 1997, p. 46; see also Bunnell, forth-
beyond the (re)shaping of city sites and
coming).
spaces to foster kampung social interaction.
Rather, the moral geography of kampung Similarly, Lim Jee Yuan’s popular The
rules is also bound up with de nitions of Malay House: Rediscovering Malaysia’s In-
appropriate uses of, and interrelations with, digenous Shelter System describes kampung
the urban environment. In the debate follow- housing as being “designed with a deep
ing the ‘shame’ of Jalan Bukit Bintang, one understanding and respect for nature” (Lim,
article contrasted the ‘culture of rubbish’ in 1987, p. 143)—a “design-with-nature ap-
the city where public places are considered to proach” (Lim, 1987, p. 68). Second, is an
‘belong to nobody’ with the cleanliness of imperative of investible city visibility. In ad-
the village with its strong sense of collective dition to the incorporation of kampung de-
ownership (Nelson, 1997). Sociologist No- sign features into prominent buildings on the
rani Othman is cited as prescribing kampung city skyline, kampung is invoked as the
as a model of collective environmental re- model for civic responsibility and, with it, a
sponsibility to be translated to the urban sanitised global image. Thirdly, as Patricia
context. While the imagined village referent Sloane’s work has shown, for many corpo-
here is clearly not the urban kampung seting- rate Malays, “Being Kampung” de nes a
gan, even the latter has instructive human– “modern Malay identity” (1999, p. 89).
environmental relations. In his
While the kampung encompassed no past
‘kampungminium’ project in Rawang, north
economic behaviours that could be utilized
of Kuala Lumpur, the architect Jimmy Lim
in the present, and Malay feudal society
ensured that all residents would be allocated
had no social behaviours applicable to
a plot enabling them to ‘bond with the en-
modern life, the kampung, now exalted as
vironment’ 22 and thus enjoy what urban pio-
a kind of idyllic community, has, to my
neers’ groups referred to as the ‘subsidy of
informants and their political leaders, in-
the land’.23 Of course, often such kampung
structive power in conducting modern re-
reconnections are either marketing gimmicks
lationships (Sloane, 1999, p. 89).
or else, as Norani points out, ‘done to im-
press some politician’. Yet these practices Kampung here is seen as having less to do
and critique of them, I suggest, form part of with Sloane’s informants’ past experiencesKAMPUNG RULES 1697
than with a crucial de nition of their modern, and conduct rendered ‘out of place’ in the
urban(e) identity. If urbanisation has long city, transgressing and thereby revealing
been considered necessary to overcome kam- authoritative urban(e) limits. In the second,
pung mentality, a new urban generation kampung informs emerging norms and forms
looks to the kampung as inspiration for con- of Malay, and increasingly Malaysian,
duct be tting Malay(sian) modernity. modernity. ‘Kampung rules’ of landscaped
The use of parentheses here, nally, de- urban Malay(sian)ness may thus be con-
mands further explanation. On the one hand, sidered as an increasingly powerful system
as Sloane’s work suggests, kampung contin- of evaluation in opposition to a developmen-
ues to inform a speci cally Malay system of talist rationality of government (see Mur-
urban(e) conduct. On the other hand, politi- doch, 2000) which has long rendered
cal changes in Malaysia have arguably kampung problematic.
served to recon gure relations between However, analysis at the level of rationali-
‘Malaysian’ and ‘Malay’ in state versions of ties of government unsettles existing concep-
the nation (Khoo, 1995). While the Malay tualisations of power and contest in urban
‘special political position’ has been founded landscapes (see, for example, Chua, 1995;
upon the Malay bangsa (or ‘ethnic’) as the Ockey, 1997). Writing on Singapore, Chua
‘rightful inhabitants’ of Malaysia, Mahathir’s Beng Huat (1995) has noted the potential for
‘Vision 2020’, announced in 1991, envisaged nostalgic everyday imaginings of kampung—
‘Bangsa Malaysia’ (Mahathir, 1993). The spaces which have largely disappeared from
long-term signi cance of the current ‘multi- the ‘real’ landscape of the city-state—to con-
cultural rescripting’ of Malaysian national stitute ‘resistance’ against a modernising,
identity is a moot point (Bunnell, 2002a). materialistic present. Such imaginings, ac-
However, the very fact that ethnic Chinese cording to Chua, are in turn countered by an
professionals alluded to above are among all-powerful development-oriented state.
those authorities seeking to incorporate kam- This binary analytical distinction between the
pung into contemporary urban development state and its opponents is clearly inadequate
is perhaps signi cant. It suggests not only a in Malaysia and, I would argue, elsewhere
role for non-Malays in the (re)de nition of too. First, work on governmentality has un-
aims and means of ‘national’ development, settled taken-for-granted notions of the unity
but also that kampung is potentially central to and coherence of state power (Foucault,
such trans-ethnic reworking. Certainly, kam- 1991). Even to the extent that the state can be
pung here no longer signi es “an unadulter- recognised as a uni ed actor, in Malaysia at
ated haven against non-Malay worlds” (see least, it is one which participates in cultural
Ong, 1987, p. 57). Kampung increasingly valorisation of kampung as well as its prob-
comes to inform Malaysian, as opposed to lematisation. Yet, more fundamentally,
exclusively Malay, national rules of urban(e) ‘government’ in Malaysia (and even in Sin-
land use. gapore) is the work of a range of authorities
including the state (see Rose, 1999). In the
contested landscape of contemporary Kuala
5. Conclusion
Lumpur, as we have seen, this includes archi-
I have examined ‘kampung’ in terms of the tects, planners, sociologists, NGOs, city
contested government of urban(e) Malay- government of cials, planners and property
ness. Kampung is understood as both a developers, some of whom are politically
physical space in the Malaysian urban land- opposed to the Barisan Nasional govern-
scape and a code for how (not) to conduct ment. Secondly, it is misleading to see these
oneself appropriately in the city. Two ver- authorities as constitutive of ‘power’ acting
sions of kampung are shown to co-exist in upon and/or resisted by everyday individuals
the moral geography of contemporary Kuala and groups. I have charted the contested
Lumpur. In the rst, kampung denotes sites (re)construction of appropriate urbanity and1698 TIM BUNNELL
means to achieving it. The failure of pro- 1994). The theme of governmental power is
grammes and strategies gives rise to an on- to be distinguished from earlier concerns
with the formation of domains of knowledge
going reworking of aims and means of and with punitive rationalities in its concern
government. In this way, a multiplicity of with ‘rehabilitating agency’ (Barnett, 1999,
actors, from errant resettled squatters to the p. 383). As Mitchell Dean puts it
Lord Mayor, are bound up in the refashion-
ing of Kuala Lumpur’s normative landscape. Government concerns the shaping of hu-
man conduct and acts on the governed as
This reworking of ‘contest’ is not, nally, a locus of action and freedom. It therefore
to dismiss urban inequalities relating to an entails the possibility that the governed are
emergent Malay(sian) rationality of ‘kam- to some extent capable of acting and
pung rules’. On the one hand, the kampung thinking otherwise (Dean, 1999, p. 15).
imaginings of resettled squatters and their
Work on landscape in cultural geography
advocators appear to be echoed in new ideals may be understood as extending these in-
and objectives of architects, urban planners sights through a consideration of spaces of
and even political authorities. On the other government.
hand, we might ask to what extent the valori- 5. Shamsul (1996) distinguishes UMNO ‘ad-
sation of kampung translates into tangible ministocrats’ from two other factions with
the Malay nationalist movement: an Islam
bene ts for the urban poor, of whatever as- faction and the Malay left. Despite this use-
cribed ethnicity. The exclusive ‘kampung- ful distinction, and UMNO’s national politi-
minium’ (Real Estate Review, 1993), the cal success, I consider each of these groups
would-be ‘multimedia utopias’ of Malaysia’s as part of a broader contested ‘government of
new ‘intelligent cities’ (Bunnell, 2002b), Malayness’.
6. This would appear to draw, in particular, on
even ‘being kampung’ (Sloane, 1999), all a neo-Lamarckian belief in the inheritance of
imply new social landscapes of division and acquired characteristics which suggests that
exclusion. Kampung rules are thus bound up modi cations can be built up and the tempo
with social and spatial ‘dividing practices’ of evolution increased (see Livingstone,
(see Rose, 1996) centred upon individual 1992, p. 189).
7. A term referring to Malays and other consti-
and collective (in)abilities of urban(e) self- tutionally de ned ‘indigenous’ groups.
realisation. In this highly inequitable, con- 8. Even in 1980, in fact, more than half of the
tested moral geography, it is no surprise that squatters in Kuala Lumpur were Chinese.
a rationality of government valorising kam- What distinguished Malay squatters as prob-
pung is rising to prominence while the kam- lematic was their relatively rapid rate of
increase, especially in the 1970s and their
pung setinggan disappears from the city association with urban poverty (Mohd.
landscape at an accelerated rate. Razali, 1993). In the year 2000, Malays still
did not account for the majority of the total
population of the national capital (48.3 per
Notes cent) (Mohd. Razali, 2000).
9. Interview with Of cer, City Economic Plan-
1. The Malay-language Utusan Malaysia ning Unit, Kuala Lumpur City Hall, 6 Au-
(1997) also carried the story, although only gust 1997.
on page 3. 10. Interview with Deputy-Director, Economic
2. Personal communication with Of cer, De- Planning and Social Amenity Department,
partment of Housing Management, Kuala Kuala Lumpur City Hall, 15 August 1997.
Lumpur City Hall, 8 September 1997. 11. Low-cost housing provision has consistently
3. This is the national development, ‘Vision failed to keep pace with demand with the
2020’ (Mahathir, 1993). result that many squatters have been forced
4. The notion of the agency of individuals in to live in rumah panjang (‘longhouses’)
(re)making themselves here is crucial. Criti- while waiting for ats to be made available.
cal arguments against Michel Foucault’s rad- Delays and much of the shortfall are rou-
ical decentring of ‘the subject’ are well tinely attributed to private companies who
rehearsed, but it was precisely through the fail to realise housing quotas set in return for
concept of governmentality that he sought to ‘development’ of squatter kampung land. In
overcome these in his later work (McNay, the 1980s, the failure to realise low-costKAMPUNG RULES 1699
housing targets was attributed to public-sec- AZIZAN, Z. A. (1997) A city in the making: a case
tor inef ciency thus prompting a shift to study on Putrajaya. Paper presented at South
private-sector provision. By the Seventh South Mayor’s Conference: Developing Solu-
Malaysia Plan period (starting in 1996), the tions for Cities of the 21st Century, July, Putra
entire burden of building low-cost housing World Trade Centre, Kuala Lumpur.
had been shifted to the private sector BARNETT, C. (1999) Culture, government and spa-
(Malaysia, 1996). tiality: Reassessing the ‘Foucault effect’ in cul-
12. The Mid-Valley Development is said to be a tural-policy studies, International Journal of
‘visionary city within a city’. Mid-Valley ‘is Cultural Studies, 2, pp. 369 – 397.
spread over 50 acres of land and offers over BROOKFIELD, H., ABDUL SAMAD HADI and
18 million sq ft of mixed commercial space’ ZAHARAH MAHMUD (1991) The City in the Vil-
(Mid-Valley Sdn. Bhd., 1997). Kuala lage: The In-situ Urbanization of Villages,
Lumpur City Hall is a joint-venture partner Villagers and their Land around Kuala
in the project. Lumpur, Malaysia. Singapore: Oxford Univer-
13. Personal communication with Of cer, De- sity Press.
partment of Housing Management, Kuala BUNNELL, T. (1999) Views from above and be-
Lumpur City Hall, 8 September 1997. low: the Petronas Twin Towers and/in contest-
14. Personal communication with Of cer, De- ing visions of development in contemporary
partment of Housing Management, Kuala Malaysia, Singapore Journal of Tropical Ge-
Lumpur City Hall, 8 September 1997. ography, 20, pp. 1– 23.
15. Interview with former JSPB Chairman, 1 BUNNELL, T. (2002a) (Re)positioning Malaysia:
August 1997. high-tech networks and the multicultural re-
16. Interview with JSPB volunteers, 28 July scripting of national identity, Political Geogra-
1997. phy, 21, pp. 105 – 124.
17. Interview with JSPB volunteers, 28 July BUNNELL, T. (2002b) Multimedia utopia? A geo-
1997. graphical critique of high-tech development in
18. Interview with Deputy-Director, Economic Malaysia, Antipode, 34, pp. 265– 295.
Planning and Social Amenity Department, BUNNELL, T. (forthcoming) Malaysia, Modernity
Kuala Lumpur City Hall, 15 August 1997. and the Multimedia Super Corridor. London:
19. Interview with Director, Architecture and Routledge.
Special Projects Department, Kuala Lumpur CHUA, B. H. (1995) That imagined space: nostal-
City Hall, 27 August 1997. gia for kampungs, in: B. S. A. YEOH and L.
20. Interview with JSPB volunteers, 28 July KONG (Eds) Portraits of Places: History, Com-
1997. The remainder of this paragraph draws munity and Identity in Singapore, pp. 222– 241.
upon material from this interview. Singapore: Times Editions.
21. One of the reasons why NGOs use the term CRESSWELL, T. (1996) In Place/Out of Place:
‘urban pioneer’ is precisely because of the Geography, Ideology and Transgression.
connotations of illegality associated with Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
‘squatters’ (Syed Husin, 1997). Press.
22. Interview with Jimmy Lim, 10 July 1997. CRESSWELL, T. (2000) Falling Down: Resistance
23. Interview with JSPB volunteers, 28 July as diagnostic, in: J. SHARP, P. ROUTLEDGE, C.
1997. PHILO and R. PADDISON (Eds) Entanglements of
Power: Geographies of Domination and Resist-
ance, pp. 256 – 268. London: Routledge.
DEAN, M. (1994) Critical and Effective Histories:
References Foucault’s Methods and Historical Sociology.
London: Routledge.
ALATAS, S. H. (1977) The Myth of the Lazy DEAN, M. (1999) Governmentality: Power and
Native. London: Frank Cass. Rule in Modern Society. London: Sage.
AMRY, S. (1997a) Public apathy about cleanliness FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND COUNTRY
symptomatic of slow social development, New PLANNING (1997) Landscape Master Plan for
Straits Times, 12 August, p. 2. Cyberjaya, Malaysia. May.
AMRY, S. (1997b) City of future with a strong FOUCAULT, M. (1991) Governmentality, in: G.
local imprint, New Sunday Times, 13 April, BURCHELL, C. GORDON and P. MILLER (Eds)
p. 16. The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmental-
AZIZAH KASSIM (1982) A history of squatting in ity, pp. 87– 104. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester
West Malaysia with special reference to the Wheatsheaf.
Malays in Kuala Lumpur. Department of GHANI SALLEH and LEE LIK MENG (1997) Low
Anthropology and Sociology, University of Cost Housing in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Utu-
Malaya, Kuala Lumpur. san Publications.1700 TIM BUNNELL GOMEZ, E. T. and JOMO , K. S. (1997) Malaysia’s Census of Malaysia: General Report of the Political Economy: Politics, Patronage and Population Census. Kuala Lumpur: Department Pro ts. Cambridge: Cambridge University of Statistics. Press. MALAYSIA (1996) Seventh Malaysia Plan, 1996– GUINNESS, P. (1992) On the Margin of Capital- 2000. Kuala Lumpur: Government Printers. ism: People and Development in Mukim Plen- MATLESS, D. (1994) Moral geography in Broad- tong, Johor, Malaysia. Singapore: Oxford land, Ecumene, 1, pp. 127 – 155. University Press. MATLESS, D. (1998) Landscape and Englishness. HISHAM HARUN (1997) Squatter’s plight after re- London: Reaktion. location, New Straits Times (Life and Times MCGEE, T. (1967) The Southeast Asian City: A section), 17 April, p. 1. Social Geography of the Primate Cities of KAHN, J. S. (1992) Class, ethnicity and diversity: Southeast Asia. London: G. Bell and Son. some remarks on Malay culture in Malaysia, in: MCGEE, T. (1976) Malay migration to Kuala J. KAHN and F. L OH (Eds) Fragmented Vision: Lumpur city: individual adaptation to the city, Culture and Politics in Contemporary in: D. BANKS (Ed.) Changing Identities in Mod- Malaysia, pp. 158 – 178. Sydney: Allen and Un- ern Southeast Asia, pp. 199 – 235. The Hague: win. Mouton Publishers. KESSLER, C. (1980) Malaysia: Islamic revivalism MCNAY, L. (1994) Foucault: A Critical Introduc- and political disaffection in a divided society, tion. Cambridge: Polity Press. Southeast Asia Chronicle, 75, pp. 3– 11. MID -VALLEY SDN. BHD. (1997) Realizing the KHOO, B. T. (1995) Paradoxes of Mahathirism: Malaysian vision (marketing material). An Intellectual Biography of Mahathir Mo- MILLER, P. and ROSE, N. (1990) Governing hamad. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University economic life, Economy and Society, 19, pp. 1– Press. 31. KUALA LUMPUR CITY HALL (1993) Kuala Lumpur MITCHELL, D. (2000) Cultural Geography: A City Hall Information Book. The Administra- Critical Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. tion and Public Affairs Division, February. MOHD . RAZALI AGUS (1989) Impact of urbaniza- KUROKAWA, K. (1999) Kuala Lumpur Inter- tion on the urban Malays of Malaysia: prob- national Airport. Stuttgart: Edition Axel lems of homeownership of the lower income Menges. groups, Sarjana (Journal of the Faculty of Arts LEE, B. T. (1987) New towns in Malaysia: Devel- and Social Science, University of Malaya), 5, opment and planning policies, in: D. R. pp. 113– 142. PHILLIPS and A. YEH (Eds) New Towns in East MOHD . RAZALI AGUS (1993) Squatters and urban and Southeast Asia: Planning and Develop- development in Malaysia, Sarjana (Journal of ment, pp. 153– 169. New York: Oxford Univer- the Faculty of Arts and Social Science, Univer- sity Press. sity of Malaya), 10, pp. 113– 131. LIM, J. Y. (1987) The Malay House: Rediscover- MOHD . RAZALI AGUS (2000) Etos budaya kerja ing Malaysia’s Indigenous Shelter System. masyarakat Melayu Bandar, in: MOHD. RAZALI Pinang: Institut Masyarakat. and FASHBIR NOOR SIDIN (Eds) Pembangunan LIVINGSTONE , D. N. (1992) The Geographical dan Dinamika Masyarakat Malaysia, pp. 285 – Tradition. Oxford: Blackwell. 295. Kuala Lumpur: Utusan. MAHATHIR MOHAMAD (1970) The Malay Di- MOKHTAR LONG IDRIS (1993) Urban housing with lemma. Singapore: Times Books. special emphasis on the squatter population of MAHATHIR MOHAMAD (1993) Malaysia: the way Kuala Lumpur, in: K. OTHMAN (Ed.) Meeting forward, in: A. HAMID (Ed.) Malaysia’s Vision Housing Needs: Issues and Policy Directions, 2020: Understanding the Concept, Implications pp. 15– 31. Kuala Lumpur: Institute of Strategic and Challenges, pp. 403 – 420. Petaling Jaya: and International Studies. Pelanduk Publications. MORSHIDI SIRAT, ABDUL FATAH CHE HAMAT, Malay Mail (1997a) You may be next: authorities ABDUL RASHID ABDUL AZIZ, ALIP ET AL. (1999) urged to act against high-rise littering, 30 May, Low-cost Housing in Urban-Industrial Centres p. 1. of Malaysia: Issues and Challenges. Pulau Malay Mail (1997b) We’re ashamed, 31 May, Pinang: Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia. p. 1. MUHAMMAD MOHD. TAIB (1993) Melayu Baru. Malay Mail (1997c) Binocular watch on tenants, Kuala Lumpur: ITC Book Publisher. 30 May, p. 2. MURDOCH, J. (2000) Space against time: compet- Malay Mail (1997d) Educate high-rise tenants ing rationalities in planning for housing, Trans- call, 31 May, p. 2. actions of the Institute of British Geographers, MALAYSIA (1971) Second Malaysia Plan, 1971– 25, pp. 503 – 519. 75. Kuala Lumpur: Government Printers. NELSON, S. (1997) The litterbug in you and me, MALAYSIA (1983) 1980 Population and Housing New Straits Times, 12 August, p. 7.
You can also read
