The Vanishing Culture of Malaysian Urbanization

The Vanishing Culture of Malaysian Urbanization Hans-Dieter Evers Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Bangi, revised ms 2016 ABSTRACT: Malaysian plural society is characterized by a concentration of Chinese in urban and a concentration of Malays in rural areas. So far, economic and political factors have been emphasized to explain the spatial differentiation of these communities. Though the importance of these factors is recognized a cultural dimension is added and its impact analyzed. It is argued that Malays and Chinese differ in their cultural values concerning space. Whereas the Malay conception of space is centrifocal, the Chinese conception of space is bounded. The consistency of this cultural pattern is demonstrated by drawing examples from conceptions of geographical, social, religious and political space and their combination in an image of the city. As Malaysian towns and housing developments are built according to a Chinese conception of space, the absorption of Malay rural-urban migrants is impeded and Chinese Control over urban commercial activities is maintained. 1 Ethnic Diversity in a Multi-cultural Society Malaysian society is multi-ethnic and countless observers have drawn attention to the unequal geographical distribution of its two major ethnic groups, Malays and Chinese. Overall population statistics of Peninsular Malaysia clearly show that despite heavy rural-urban migration most urban areas are still mainly populated by Chinese, whereas rural areas are dominated by Malays. There are of course exceptions to this. A few major towns, particularly on the east coast have a majority of Malays, but even here the city core tends to be inhabited and owned by Chinese. Those ecological areas of towns that convey a typically "urban" character are Chinese, whereas the Malay areas maintain a typical "rural" appearance. It is not without justification that Malay areas within Malaysian towns are usually called kampong, whereas Chinese areas are given place names and street names, or are in some cases just called Chinatown. There are also Chinese villages with a predominantly agricultural population, and single Chinese families in Malay villages. But even then Chinese houses tend to have a more urban appearance. They tend to be built of stone more often than of timber and they sit squarely on the ground, whereas Malay houses are raised on stilts, built of planks, and thatched or covered with corrugated iron sheets. Only government sponsored settlements with a Malay or Indian population tend to be high-rise buildings of a non-descriptive international character. Large estate companies and government departments, like UDA (Urban Development Authority) have paid little attention to cultural values, traditions or habits of living and have constructed housing estates and condominiums according to ïnternational standards”, what ever that may be. The following analysis looks back into the origins of Malaysian living, rather than into current or future trends. It tries to portray origins and still living urban cultural values that may be out of tune with the realities of the built environment. The rural character of the Malays and the urban mode of living of the Chinese have often been noted, described and explained. Malays always have been, so the argument goes, a rural people, who have adopted their style of life to the tropical climate of torrential rains and to paddy agriculture. Chinese are immigrants and had to find an ecological niche left by the Malays. They came into Malaya with the expansion of modern capitalism, partly even before colonial rule was firmly established. It was left to them to extend markets, to provide labor for tin mining and for the capitalist plantation economy, and to found and settle the communication centers of the new political and economic system, namely, the towns and cities. Thus a colonial plural society emerged with a division of labor based on ethnic lines. All these reasons given for the unequal geographical distribution of Malays and Chinese are true, but not necessarily sufficient to explain present-day urbanization taking place under changed circumstances. This is because the cultural aspect has so far been neglected and the ideological superstructure, as it were, disregarded. Even if the basic socioeconomic structure changes, even if the present development polity of rectifying the racial imbalance within the occupational and residential structure meets with success, Malays are unlikely to change their way of life immediately nor is the ethnic structure of Malaysian cities likely to be reversed in the near future. Even those Malays that have been lured into the cities by the efforts of the Malaysian government to open up urban job opportunities for rural Malays appear to be still maintaining a rural ideology. Malay politicians are known to have admonished Malay civil servants to stay in town after retirement instead of returning to their home villages. Even within cities, areas with a concentration of a Malay population tend to preserve their rural character in at least a symbolic fashion. Despite very often 2 crowded conditions houses are still built on stilts and a few coconut trees are planted and chickens are raised. Now it could be argued and statistically "proven" that the economic, educational, and occupational differences between Chinese and Malays are non-existent if one keeps place of residence (rural or urban) constant. Consequently, there are said to be no real differences between Chinese and Malays except place of residence. If Malays move to the city, differences between them and Chinese would disappear. This argument is, of course, nonsensical and based ona complete misunderstanding of both the political economy and the culture of Malaysia. It is prececisely the fact that rural urban migration is still very low (except in Kuala Lumpur, Fernandez et al. 1975:40) and that Malays tend to stay in the rural areas and maintain a rural style of life even in cities, whereas the Chinese tend to concentrate in cities and maintain an urban way of life, which needs explanation. To keep the dependent variable constant or to eliminate it statistically from one's paradigm begs the question and renders the possibility of explaining the structure and dynamics of Malaysian society impossible. British colonial policy has created a socioeconomic base on which a cultural superstructure could flourish, creating, selecting, and maintaining traditional Chinese and Malay values that otherwise might have vanished. In the following paragraphs I wish to explicate an important aspect of these Chinese and Malay cultural values, which appears to be a most relevant factor in shaping the process of Malaysian urbanization and the ecological structure of Malaysian urban areas. Differing Conceptions of Space end the Image of the City In the following explications I wish to use a phenomenological approach. My data will be primarily observations ordered in a more or less systematic fashion, a number of linguistic facts (or patterns of verbal behavior) from free interviews and written records, and the results of s survey of landownership in 18 Malaysian towns. Conceptions of Land and Landownership Upon entering a Malay rural or urban kampong (village) one is faced with the problem of orientation. There is usually no main street. no plaza or main square, but only an apparently arbitrary system of winding footpaths leading from house to house becoming narrower at times or ending in blind alleys. There appears to be no clear pattern, no "readability" of the urban or rural scene,2 which according to Kevin Lynch's wellknown study. The Image of the City, is so important for the image of a town or settlement (Lynch 1960). Malay houses themselves are built according to a clear pattern. They have a veranda (serambi), a main room (ibu rumah) from which one or two sleeping rooms may be divided (bilek), and a kitchen attached to the back of the house (dapur). The veranda usually (but not necessarily) faces the east or south to keep it cool in the afternoon, but in addition there are no rules or regulations about how houses ought to relate to each other. There appears to be a tendency to keep them apart as far as possible and in such a way that the view is never blocked by houses alone. This creates an impression of a wide-open space even if villages become more densely settled due to growing population and the rule of neo-local residence after marriage. Boundaries between the house lots are in no way demarcated, and residents find it difficult to point out the exact shape of the plot of land on which the house is built. Importance is only attached to the usufructuary 3 rights to coconut trees or fruit trees; otherwise, boundaries do not seem to matter. Though Malaysia has had, since British times, a fairly well-organized cadastresystem. Malay villagers quite often do not bother to register changes in the ownership of their housing lots. If new settlers come in from other areas or new families are created by marriage, permission to put up a house is fairly easily granted by the owner and no rent is charged for the land (Goh n.d., Goh and Evers 1976). Houses, however, are rented or sold separately irrespective of the National Land Code which does not allow a legal separation of land and building structures. The nature of the conception of geographical space or land is demonstrated by a case from a village in which I resided for some time. A man moved into the village to earn a living as a sate vendor. He asked an absentee landlord whether he would be allowed to put up a house on his lot of land, and permission was easily granted. After the house had been built the absentee landlord visited the village and found to hit surprise that the house was established on a lot adjacent to his. The actual owner on learning of the situation reacted only by exhibiting the common "never-mind attitude" (tidak apa-apa). Discussion with villagers to verify boundaries on cadastre maps proved to be very difficult and often futile. There appeared to be no clearly developed conception of bounded space and of clear-cut boundaries in general. The same attitude is found when trying to delineate the boundaries of a kampong or village. A kampong is usually defined by the relationship of its inhabitants to the mosque or prayer house. As Clarke (1976:63) pointed out in an analysis of the spatial order of Kota Bharu, Kelantan, “most areas have a central identifying physical feature and from this the area radiates in various directions. Boundaries are indistinct..." All those taking part in the election of the mosque committee belong to one kampong, irrespective of where they actually live. The kampong is therefore in essence not a residential group in the sense the term is defined in sociology text books. The definition of the village as a territorial group is based on the European image of a settlement and is strictly not appli. cable to the Malay situation.3 Boundaries in the rice fields are more clearly defined, as rice fields are divided by dams and irrigation channels. But even here the conception of space or area is rather diffuse. Originally, the size of a paddy field was measured in sowing extent (i.e., according to a fixed measure of rice that was used to sow a plot of land, which could vary in size according to the availability of water and the quality of soil). Nowadays traditional Malay measures of rice land have their equivalent in English measures (acres, usually), but the equivalent acreage varies from area to area or from state to state. It is only in the area of small holding rubber plantations that fairly fixed conceptions of areas are maintained. The Chinese conception of space differs greatly from that of the Malays. On entering a Chinese village one is sure where it begins and where it ends. Whereas Malay houses stand on stilts and are suspended above ground. Chinese houses sit squarely on the soil. There tends to be one main footpath or street passing through the village, which in most cases is usually clearly discernible even on a cadastre map because plots of land tend to be small but regular. Members of a Chinese family will be able to tell exactly where their land ends and their neighbors begins. Quite often a fence is put up creating an inner yard attached to the house. Whereas Malays tend to add the names of family members as owners of a plot of land on intestate inheritance, Chinese tend to subdivide or sell land. Working on land registry data we often came across plots of Malay-owned land that were divided into shares of one seventh, one twelfth, or up to several 4 hundredth shares. Islamic law is partly responsible for this, but the fact remains that effective individual ownership is no longer possible. Though joint ownership is also common among Chinese, it seldom extends to unmanageable proportions. Conceptions of Religious Space The importance of the ownership of land and the concomitant clear-cut conception of geographical space is further emphasized by the fact that Chinese have developed a special science of boundaries, namely geomancy. The measures of a plot of land and the direction a house should face were traditionally determined by a ritual specialist, a geomancer. Though his services are not necessarily employed anymore, there is still a rudimentary knowledge of the science of geomancy (feng shui) and a clear understanding of the importance of spatial arrangements. Great attention is still paid to the direction of the main door and the positioning of houses in general. On occasion the outlay of cities and the fortune of their inhabitants is related to geomantic principles. One informant even tried to explain the initial success of British rule over Malaya by pointing out, in terms of geomancy, the most appropriate position of the living quarters of British residents and district officers, which tended to be located on hills turning their back to mountain range. The difference between Chinese and Malay conceptions of space becomes particularly visible when comparing Chinese and Malay Moslem graveyards. Chinese attach a great importance to the exact location and the boundaries of a grave, which are as long as the family can afford it, indicated by strong walls surrounding the tomb. Ritual specialist are employed to measure and determine a good location for an ancestral grave. Chinese graveyards are therefore spatially highly structured and permanent. A Malay graveyard is in contrast very loosely shuctured. The two boundary stones put on each grave are scattered and extend into the surrounding areas as long as building regulations in cities have not made this impossible. No great importance is attached to the location of the grave. Wherever there is some space left the burial can take place. The only exceptions are graves said to possess magic powers (kuburan keramat) and the mosques themselves, which have a clearly defined ritually pure area. But even here the Malay conception of space has made inroads. A frequently found form of holy grave in Malaysia is the so-called kuburan panjang (long grave). The holy man buried here is said to have grown, thus pushing the boundary stones of the grave down. The grave stones have to be reerected from time to time, extending the length of the grave in the process. Even in the area of nonorthodox religion the differences between the Chinese and Malay conceptions of space become apparent. The Chinese attach great importance to the earth goddess. Villages or town quarters tend to have a local guardian deity, a Datok. Malay ghosts, however, are not attached to particular places of worship4 Though the Malay also know guardian ghosts whose power emanates from a certain place, their power does not apply to a clearly defined area; they do not rule defined territories. Our analysis of the differences between Chinese and Malay conceptions of geographical and religious space can also be extended to conceptions of social space. 5 Conceptions of Social Space With very few exceptions the population of the Malay peninsula consists of immigrants. This holds true both to Malays, many of whom originated from Sumatra, Java, or other Indonesian islands, and to Chinese. Nevertheless, Malays would attach very little importance to their place of origin. Migrants from Sumatra or Java are quickly acculturated to a uniform Malay society. Second. generation migrants usually do not speak the dialect or langudge of their parents any more and would claim, on being interviewed, that they are local people (asal dari sini). On being questioned further, they might have some hazy conceptions of where their ancestors came from but will usually not know or be interested in the exact place of origin. Exceptions to this general rule tend to be people of Minangkabau origin, as long as they live together in close settlements and maintain a system of matrilineal descent (Evers 1975a). In contrast, Chinese tend to have a very clear conception not only of their general area of origin in China but even of the exact name of the village from which they originated. This knowledge is to a certain extend still trails mitted from generation to generation. Whereas Malay identity is established by social and cultural facts — namely, by being a Muslim, speaking the Malay language, and being in very general, locally undefined terms a “bumiputra” (son of the soil) - Chinese determine their ethnic identity primarily by their dialect and their place of origin in China.5 A strict system of patrilineal descent, lineages, and clans defined by common ancestors, common geographical origin, and common localized places of worship is based on an identity between social and geographical space. The localized bias in the Malay conception of social space could also be demonstrated in a study of the "mental maps" of Malaysian students in a northern town (Gould and White 1974:167-169). On being asked where they would prefer to find employment, most Malays gave the name of their home town and to a lesser degree the surrounding area, whereas Chinese students preferred various urban centers along the west coast as far south as Singapore. The Chinese mental map was clearly focused on major urban areas whereas the Malay one was centered on the primarily rural home districts. These differing conceptions of space form in a general way the basis of another culturally defined complex, namely, the image of an urban area, a town, or a city. It is the combination of the conception of space and the image of an urban area that, I submit, still influences the urbanization process and the urban ecology of Malaysia. Conceptions of Political and Urban Space Through most Chinese immigrants to Malaysia came originally from rural areas in Southern China they nevertheless brought with them the image of a rural life centered on the city. As Skinner (1964) has pointed out in a lengthy study, Chinese rural social structure cannot be understood without reference to towns. Clusters of small villages surrounding a locally important town formed a discrete social and areal unit, which Skinner terms a "standard marketing area." Occupational and religious associations as well as kinship ties combined to turn this area into a tightly knit sociopolitical unit. Chinese social life, even in rural areas, was centered on the city and it is likely that this image of the city was also brought over to Malaysia by southern Chinese migrants. At least Chinese secret societies that dominated Chinese society in the Straits Settlements and the Malay states perpetuated the urban image and enshrined it in their most important ritual, the initiation of new members. These rites were held in a Chinese temple, representing "an imaginary walled city through which the candidate was to take a symbolic journey" (Purcell 1956:165). A Chinese city itself was a highly structured spatial entity with definite boundaries, directions, and functional 6 areas (Wheatley 1971). Though no walled Chinese city was ever built in Malaysia (unless one wants to count the barbed wire-fenced "new villages" during the Communist uprising as such), the concept of dense urban living in bounded. clearly defined space was certainly known and utilized as a "mental map" or blueprint to Malaysian Chinese urbanism. In contrast, the Malay perception of political space and of the city was quite different. It seems to go back to, or at least to show great similarity to, Indonesian predecessors. In the empires of Majapahit and Mataram "territory was concerted as radiating in three concentric circles with the Kraton of the prince at the centre: (1) the nagaragung or core regions, (2) the mantjanegara, or neighbouring regions and (3) the pasisir, or coastal provinces" (Siddique 1977). The spatial perception is centrifocal and the center is the palace of the ruler rather than the city' The Malay conception of political space appears to have been quite similar. The center of political power in the Malay states was the palace of the king or sultan. The istana was, and in some occasions still is, surrounded by royal villages, inhabited by retainers and craftsmen serving the royal court. Marketplaces were usually physically separated from the palace by some distance. It is here that cities developed primarily through Chinese and Indian immigration. Up to now the Malay image of the town (bandar) is one of the market• place rather than a residential area. In fact, bandar means, strictly speaking, a port or harbor town. Kota, another term frequently connected with town names in Malaysia, means tort or stockade. There is no precise Malay expression for town or city. Malays live in villages (kampongs), even if these villages now administratively fall within the boundaries of a municipality. In contrast to Chinese conceptions of the spatial structure of society, Malay life was focused on the istana and the mosque, but not on the city. It is therefore not so much Kuala Lumpur, the capital city, but the national mosque, the Masjid Negara, and the king, the Yang di Pertuan Agong, elected from among the sultans of the Malay states, that form the focus of Malay national sentiment and identity. In the ecological structure of some of the Malaysian cities the principles of an Islamized and Malayanized image of the Indian city of ancient Southeast Asia are still to be seen. A central square (padang) opens toward the sultan's palace (ivens) and the living quarters of the sultan's extended family and their descendants. The main mosque is found next to the padang in the immediate Proximity of the istanas, whereas the market and the Chinese settlement are some way off the center of religious and political power. Kota Bharu (Evers and Goh 1976; Clarke 1976) and Kuala Trengganu conform very much to this pattern. But whereas some Javanese cities up to the 16th century were still surrounded by a wall, the Malayanized town consistently exhibits the centrifocal conception of space. The center (padang, istanas, and masjid besar) is clearly defined but beyond this area the spatial structures peter out and become less and less clear. The town is In cultural and social terms not a bounded area and it is absolutely undefined where the town ends and the villages begin. Even among the modern Malay urban middle class, consisting of civil servants and professionals, the original conception of space and of the city is still maintained, whenever a chance is given. It is first of all expressed in a certain uneasiness and reluctance to move into the new middle-class housing estates that are springing up in practically all Malaysian cities. A massive increase in Malay urban population living 7 primarily in these estates has so far been noted only for the Federal Territory surrounding Kuala Lumpur. This may signal a change, but still the housing estates are normally designed by Chinese architects, built by Chinese contractors, and conform to the Chinese cultural conception of space and housing. Most of these housing estates consist of modernized versions of the Chinese shophouse, where the shop is replaced by a parking space for a small car. Mostly these houses are semidetached or row houses with a narrow back lane and very small backyards surrounded by a wall. The main-tenance of boundaries is very important and clearly expressed in iron gates and stone walls. Not so in Malay areas designed and constructed by Malays themselves; here still kampong type houses are found, though the lower, formerly open part tends to be walled in and used by younger or newly married children of the family. But still, wherever possible, the boundary to the neighbor's house is not marked by a fence or a stone wall but is left open. If there are hedges or fences at all, they tend to have holes or passages, not so much from neglect, but maintaining such a visible boundary does not conform to Malay conception of space and reciprocal relations with neighbors. This point is very clearly documented in a detailed ethnography of Kota Bharu, the capital city of the state of Kelantan. According to this study "a neighbour is one who makes himself available to other neighbours when he is at home. One of the most significant features of this is that a neighbour's house should be both visible and accessible to other neighbours who may wish to call. Informants frequently relate that persons they consider to be rich people (orang kaya) build houses which are surrounded by fences with bolted gates and lots of shrubbery Persons classed as rich people are not neighbours" (Clarke1976:167).7 Conclusions I have tried to demonstrate that Malays and Chinese exhibit two different concepts of space. Whereas the Malay conception of geographical, social, religious, and political space is centrifocal, the Chinese conception of space is bounded. Chinese, even rural Chinese, have a clear-cut image of the "city" and of urban life, whereas Malays center their spatial attention on central institutions like the istana or the masjid, both of which are not necessarily urban or connected with urbanism. Malay living quarters are defined as kampongs (villages) even if they happen to be part of a city. I hope to have shown that the two differing conceptions of space are consistent and can be traced in different aspects of social organization and culture of Malays and Chinese. Such consistent sociocultural patterns reinforcing each other account for the persistence of culture over long periods of time. This also means that they are difficult to alter even if the underlying socioeconomic system changes. This poses a dilemma. The policy of the Malaysian government under the so-called New Economic Policy of the Second and Third Malaysia Plan has been to draw more Malays into urban occupations and to "urbanize" the Malay peasant. As most urban centers are Chinese in terms of inhabitants and in terms of culture, the attempt to urbanize Malays amounts to a policy of sinization of parts of Malay culture. Though this Is, of course, a policy that may be followed, it is, indeed, hard to believe that this is the intention of the present Malaysian government. What then are the alternatives? The alternative appears to be the development of an image of a Malay or at least Malaysian city in which Malay conceptions of space are translated into urban planning. So far local and foreign architects and urban planners have either copied Western models or provided slightly modernized versions of the Chinese shophouse city. 8 Legal provisions and building bylaws, enacted by primarily Chinese local councils, are usually detrimental to possible Malay types of buildings and Malay use of space. Thus the utilization of timber is often prohibited, subdivision is done to conform to the size of standard Chinese shophouse lots, roads and back lanes are laid out (by Chinese city engineers) to conform to Chinese rather than Malay concepts of space. The highly speculative land market is, again, dominated by Chinese (or, to a lesser extent, Indians) and low-cost housing schemes, often promised by government authorities, tend to turn out to be again middle-class priced and built for a Chinese style of life. Economic forces thus tend to maintain the present urban system in Malaysia, reinforcing the cultural superstructure of Chinese and Malay conceptions of space. It can thus be argued with some justification that the creation of a truly Malaysian city depends eventually on a change in the urban economy and a change in the urban political structure. NOTES 1 This paper was prepared In conjunction with the Urban Landownership Study of the Centre for Policy Research, Universitl Seine Malaysia, which was jointly directed by Goh Ban Lee and the author. Earlier drafts of this paper were read at staff seminars of the CPR and the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore. I am indebted to many friends and colleagues for critical comments on this paper, particularly to David Gibbons, Goh Ban Lee. Karnel Salih, Lee Kip Lin, Lim Teck Ghee, Ong Su Ming, K. J. Ratnam, and Kernial S. Sandhu. This original manuscript has been reworked and used in a number of other publications and has been followed up by other paapers and books (see Additional Reference below). 2 This was already pointed out by Lehmann (19361 in his comparative study on Indonesian cities: "Ole Mataische Siedlurig ist von Haus aus vielinahr unregelmissig angelegt; weder bei den Kustemnalaien noch bei den Minangkebeu euf Sumatra lessen llamas unit Siressen orpindeine Orientierung erkennen" (Lehmann 1936. 111). 3 Soja (1971:9-10) has drawn attention to the fact that "conventional western perspectives on spatial organisation ere powerfully shaped by the concept of property" and that "property has become rightly and territorially defined”. This is certainly true though rigid territorially is by no mean an exclusively Western concept. is we are going to argue in the Chinese case. The dichotomy between “Western” and “native” conceptions of space found in studies in other societies as well e.g. Bohannan (1964:174-176) does not appear to be useful in these general terms. Some related issues are discussed in Evers (1975a, 1976) and in Cohen n.d. The Indians had to be left out of this study. 4 See Mulder (1975:77) for a relevant discussion on domesticated and nondomesticated ghosts (hantu). 5 For a very perceptive discussion on the ethnographic meaning of Malay see Judith Nagata's essay (Nagata 1974). 9 6 According to the 14th century Nagarekrtagama, the capitol city of Majapahit had a brick wall, which is archeologically confirmed (Krom 1923:174). Also Bantam, Jakarta. and Cirebon were walled cities in pre Dutch times. More important however, is the well surrounding the Sultan's palace (Kraton), which sets olf the political and ritul center from the rest of the town. The Kraton walls are still maintained in the remaining sultans' residences in Java. 7 For a discussion of the issue of class and ethnicity sae Evers 1975b. REFERENCES Bohannan. Paul 1964 Africa and the Africans, Garden City. Natural History Press. Clarke, Robert E. 1976 Land and Neighbourhood as Features of Maley Urbanism. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia. Vancouver. Cohen, Erik n.d.Social Ecology, A Multidimensional Approach. Working paper. Department of Sociology. University of Singapore. Evers. Hans-Dieter I975a Changing Patterns of Urban Minangkabau Landownership. Bijdragen tot de Taal, Land-, an Volkenkunde 131(1):86-110. Evers. Hans-Dieter 1975b Urbanization and Urban Conflict In Southeast Asia. Asian Survey 15(9):775-785. Evers. Hans-Dieter 1976 Urban Expansion and Landownership In Underdeveloped Societies. In The City in Comparative Perspective, John Walton and Louis H. Masotti (eds). New York: Wiley. pp. 67-79, Evers, Hans-Dieter (ed.) 1973 Modernization In Southeast Asia. London: Oxford University Press (2nd ed., 1975). Evers, Hans-Dieter and Goh Ban Lee 1976 Urban Landownership In Kota Bharu and Jell, Kelenten. Project Paper Series No. 5, Centre for Policy Research, Universiti SainsMalaysia, Pulau Pinang. Goh Ban Lee n.d. Urbanization and Changing Land Tenure: A Butterworth Case Study. Unpublished manuscript. Goh Ban Lee and Hans-Dieter Evers 1976 Landownership and Urban Development in Butterworth. Project Paper Series. Centre for Policy Research, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang. Gould, Peter and Rodney White 1974 Mental Maps. Harmondsworth: Pelican. Fernandez, Dorothy, et al. 1975The Population of Malaysia. C.I.C.R.E.D. Series. Kuala Lumpur. Krom, N. J. 1923 Inleiding tot de Hindoe.Javaansche Kunst (Vol.2). Den Haag: M. Nijhoff. Lehmann, Herbert 1936 Das Antlitz der Stadt in Niedarlindisch Indien. In L4nderkundliche Forschung, Festschrift fur Norbert Krebs. Stuttgart: J. Engelhorns Nachf., pp.109-139. Lynch, Kevin 1960 The Image of the City. Cambridge, Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press. 10 Mulder, Niels 1975 Mysticism and Daily Life in Contemporary Java. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. Negate, Judith 1974 Who is a Malay? Situational Selection of Ethnic Identity in a Plural Society. American Ethnology 1(2):331-350. Purcell, Victor 1956 The Chinese in Malaya. London: Oxford University Press. Skinner, G. W. 1964 228, 363-399. Marketing and Social Structure in Rural China. Journal of Asian Studies 24:3-43, 195- Siddicpse, Sharon 1977 Relics of the Past? A Sociological Study of the Sultanates of Cirebon, West Java. Ph.D. thesis. University of Bielefeld. Germany. Sole, E. W. 1971 The Political Organization of Space. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Geographers. Resource Paper No. 8. Wheatley, Paul 1971. The Pivot of the Four Quarters. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES Evers, Hans-Dieter. Sosiologi Perkotaan. Urbanisasi dan Sengketa Tanah di Indonesia dan Malaysia (Urban Sociology - Urbanization and Land Disputes in Indonesia and Malaysia, Jakarta: LP3ES, 1982 (2. ed. 1985, 3. ed. 1986, 4 ed. 2000) Evers, Hans-Dieter and Rüdiger Korff. Southeast Asian Urbanism: The Meaning and Power of Social Space. Hamburg: LIT, 2000; New York: McMillan, 2000; Singapore: ISEAS, 2001. 2nd edition 2004 Evers, Hans-Dieter and Rüdiger Korff. Urbanisme di Asia Tenggara: makna dan kekuasaan dalam ruangruang sosial. Jakarta: Yayasan Obor 2002 Evers, Hans-Dieter, "Migration Patterns in a Sumatran Town", Sumatra Research Bulletin II,1 (1973) Evers, Hans-Dieter, "Involusi Kota: Struktur Sosial Kota-Kota Asia Tenggara-Suatu Kasus Kota Padang", PRISMA III,2 (1974), 73-80. Evers, Hans-Dieter, "Urbanization and Urban Conflict in Southeast Asia", Asian Survey XV, 9 (1975), 775-785 Evers, Hans-Dieter, "Urban Expansion and Landownership in Underdeveloped Societies", Urban Affairs Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 1 (1975), 117-129 Evers, Hans-Dieter, "Changing Patterns of Minangkabau Urban Landownership", Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, Leiden 131,1 (1975), 86-110. Evers, Hans-Dieter,: "Traditional Land Tenure in an Indonesian City", LTC Newsletter (University of Wisconsin) No. 43 (1974), 14-19 Evers, Hans-Dieter, "The Culture of Malaysian Urbanization - Malay and Chinese Conceptions of Space", Urban Anthropology, Vol. 6,3 (1977) 205-216. 11 Evers, Hans-Dieter, "Differing Concepts of Settlement Patterns: Malays and Chinese in Malaysia", Ekistics 263, Oct. 1977 Evers, Hans-Dieter and Goh Ban Lee, "Urban Development and Landownership in Butterworth, Malaysia", Journal of Southeast Asian Studies IX,1, 1978 Evers, Hans-Dieter, "The Evolution of Urban Society in Malaysia", in: Kernial S. Sandhu and Paul Wheatley (eds.), Melaka, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press (1983), 324-350 Evers, Hans-Dieter, "Cities and Social Conflict in Southeast Asia", in: L. Broom, Ph. Selznick und D. Broom Darroch, Sociology: a Text with Adapted Readings, 7. Aufl. New York: Harper & Row, 1981 Evers, Hans-Dieter, "Zur Theorie der urbanen Unterentwicklung", Die Dritte Welt, Nr. 1/2, 9. Jahrgang (1981), 61-68 Evers, Hans-Dieter, "Politische Ökologie der südostasiatischen Stadt: Neuere theoretische Ansätze zur Urbanisierungsproblematik", in: H. Kulke, H. C. Rieger, L. Lutze, Städte in Südasien; Geschichte, Gesellschaft, Gestalt. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag (1982), 159-176 Evers, Hans-Dieter, "Towards a Theory of Urban Underdevelopment", in: Law and State, Tübingen, Vol. 28 (1983), 98-107 Evers, Hans-Dieter, "Urban Landownership, Ethnicity and Class in Southeast Asian Cities", International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 8,4, London (1984), 481-496 Evers, Hans-Dieter, "Simbolisme Perkotaan di Indonesia: Kasus Padang 'Kota Tercinta'", PRISMA XXII,4 (1993), 81-91 Evers, Hans-Dieter, "The Symbolic Universe of the UKM: A Semiotic Analysis of the National University of Malaysia", SOJOURN: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia 12,1, ISEAS (1997), 46-63 Evers, Hans-Dieter, Sven Genschick, and Benjamin Schraven. 2010. "Constructing Epistemic Landscapes: Methods of GIS-Based Mapping." The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management (July):1-17. Evers, Hans-Dieter, Solvay Gerke, and Thomas Menkhoff. 2010. "Knowledge Clusters and Knowledge Hubs: Designing Epistemic Landscapes for Development." Journal of Knowledge Management 14(5):678 – 89. Evers, Hans-Dieter and Goh Ban Lee, 1976, "Urban Landownership in Kota Bharu and Jeli, Kelantan", Project Paper No. 5, Centre for Policy Research, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, 1976 Evers, Hans-Dieter and Goh Ban Lee, 1977. "Hakmilik Tanah di Enambelas Bandar di Semenanjung Malaysia", Project Paper, Centre for Policy Research, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang Evers, Hans-Dieter, Solvay Gerke, and Thomas Menkhoff. 2010. "Knowledge Clusters and Knowledge Hubs: Designing Epistemic Landscapes for Development." Journal of Knowledge Management 14(5):678 – 89. 12