Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T17:04:34.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The British Empire and the Southeast Asian Rice Crisis of 1919–1921

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Paul H. Kratoska
Paul H. Kratoska
Affiliation:
National University of Singapore
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

From 1919 through 1921, a combination of poor rice harvests and speculative buying caused unprecedented rice shortages in Southeast Asia and led to imposition of government controls over the rice industry. Because there were large workforces in South and Southeast Asia entirely dependent upon imported rice, the shortages were potentially very serious. Malaya and the East Coast Residency of Sumatra, for example, exported non-edible primary products such as tobacco, rubber and tin, and imported rice from Burma and Siam. Two-thirds of the rice consumed each year in Malaya, and one-half of that used in Sumatra's East Coast Residency, was imported, and local food production fell far short of the minimum needed if imported grain could not be obtained. Tea cultivation in Ceylon, tobacco and rubber planting in British North Borneo, and sugar planting in the Philippines were conducted along much the same lines.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , February 1990 , pp. 115 - 146
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For Sumatra see Pelzer, Karl J., Planters and Peasants ('s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1978), p. 119;Google Scholar for Malaya see Grist, D. H., Malayan Agricultural Statistics, 1940, Table 32.Google Scholar

2 During the war, administrators in Southeast Asia had discussed the possibility that, because large areas of agricultural land had gone out of production in Europe, the demand there for imported food would be very great when the war ended, and might push rice prices to high levels. The expected high levels of European demand did not, however, materialize.

3 Wickizer, V. D. and Bennett, M. K., The Rice Economy of Monsoon Asia (Stanford, California: Food Research Institute, 1941), p. 320.Google Scholar

4 The shipping situation appears to have eased by the start of 1918, when the American Vice Consul in Singapore reported that ample tonnage was available for commodities being sent across the Pacific. Campbell, Harry, 3 Jan. 1918 in NARS 846d.6176/2.Google Scholar

5 Rangoon Gazette, 16 02. 1917, in NARS RG 166. Entry 5 Box 326 file Burma 1917–1933: Rice.

6 CO273/440/15375(Gov.) Tel. 31 March 1916, and CO273/451/19786(MO) [War Trade Dept] 27 04 1919.

7 CO273/458/2801(MO) 15 Jan. 1918; CO273/458/62487(Gov.) Tel. 20 12. 1917; CO273/465/58378(MO) 27 11. 1917.

8 Rangoon Gazette of 16 Feb. 1917, in NARS RG 166 Item 5 Box 326 file Burma 1917–1933: Rice.

9 Rev. Secy Burma to SG India C&I 14 Oct. 1918, Proc. R&A Aug. 1919 p. 230.

10 AR Burma 1914–1915 p. x; Report on the Maritime Trade and Customs Administration of Burma, 1915–1916 (IOR V/24/486).

11 AR Burma 1915–1916 pp. 58–9.

12 AR Burma 1916–1917, pp. 63, 76–7; AR Burma 1917–1918, p.79; Proceedings of the Council of the Lt Governor of Burma (PCB) 13 March, 1918, p. 489.

13 Tel. dtd 14 Oct. 1918 in Proc. R&A Aug. 1919 p. 230; AR Burma 1916–1917 p. 16; AR Burma 1916–1917, p. 79.

14 Couper, T., Report of Inquiry into the Conditions of Agricultural Tenants and Labourers (Rangoon, 1924), p. 8Google Scholar. Reports of growers improving storage facilities to enable them to hold grain off the market until after the harvest season began appearing in 1912. Reports on the Maritime Trade and Customs Administration of Burma (IORV/24/486).

15 PCB, 13 03 1918, p. 490.

16 Ibid., p. 493.

17 Tel. 1 10. 1918 SG India C&I to Rev. Secy Burma in Proc. R&A Aug. 1919; Tel.2 Oct. 1918 SG India C&I to CS, Singapore in Proc R&A Aug. 1919; AR Burma 1918–1919 p. 74.

18 Press Notice of 17 Dec. 1918 in Proc R&A Aug. 1919 p. 209; Proc R&A March. 1919 p. 31; the maximum price quoted was for the grain known as Big Mills Specials.

19 Proc. R&A June 1919, pp. 73, 85.

20 At the end of 07, the Rangoon Times reported that unmilled rice could only be purchased on payment of a bonus of between Rs 500 and Rs 1000 per 100 tons (roughly 11–22 rupees per 100 baskets) over the price allowed by the government, and that milled rice of the grade known as No. 2 Special, for which the control price was Rs 385, was trading for Rs 418. ‘Conditions under which Rice may be Sold in Burma’, in Proc. R&A 01. 1920, p. 19; AR Burma 1919–1920, p.102.

21 AR Burma 1919–1920, p. 102.

22 Proc. R&A Jan. 1920 p. 27. During the first six months of 1919, about 560,000 bags of rice were imported from Burma. Selangor Secretariat file 119/1919.

23 R&A Aug. 1919 pp. 211–12, 228.

24 Tel. dtd 2 Jan. 1919 Rev. Secy Burma to SG India R&A in Proc. R&A 06 1919 pp. 71–2.

25 Tel. 9 Dec. 1918 from Food Commissioner, Delhi, to the Colonial Secretary, Straits Settlements, in HCO 2071/1918.

26 Young to S of S for Colonies, 28 Dec. 1918, in CO273/470/62384 (Gov.); Food Controller to Governor, 4 Jan. 1919 in Sel. Sec. 333/1919.

27 FO368/2180/13227 Foreign Office to Dering, 2 Feb. 1919; Sel. Sec. 333/1919.

28 FO368/2180/23853 and Dering to FO, 9 Feb. 1919. FO368/2180/45675. In 11 1918, Dering had written to the Malayan Government that the matter was in any case probably not susceptible to official pressure. ‘I am not of opinion that the Siamese Government could differentiate in favour of those [Federated Malay] States, for it is the Chinese merchant who entirely controls the rice market of Siam.’ Dering to HC 4 11. 1918 in HCO 1748/1918.

29 FO368/2180/54683 According to the Colonial Office, the Foreign Office had misunderstood its intentions, which were only to seek assurance that a certain quantity of grain would be made available for purchase during the last quarter of the year at ‘whatever the price may then prove to be’. Lord Curzon, however, felt that official Siamese intervention, even in the unlikely event that Siam agreed to act, would be of little value and the matter was dropped. CO273/491/21232 (FO) 7 04 1919. A short while after this exchange the Straits Government informed Siam that an existing arrangement under which the Siamese province of Phuket Purchased its rice supplies from Penang was to be ended because of the need for strict controls over the distribution of Burmese rice. Dering to Prince Devawongse, 25 Feb. 1919, in CO273/491/22294 (FO) 11 April 1919.

30 Lyle to Curzon, Conf. Desp. of 27 05 1919 in FO368/32180/98573; Lyle to Curzon 14 Oct. 1919 in CO54/823/72040; CO273/482/19580 (Gov.); CO273/483/29132 (Gov.). A fifth British firm which handled large quantities of rice, Horne and Co., was excluded from the combine because it did not maintain an establishment in Bangkok but made its purchases through the Anglo-Siam Corporation. CO54/823/72040; CO54/823/65066.

31 The following account is based on a Confidential Despatch (no. 21 of 15 Sep. 1919) from Mr Fitzmaurice the Ag British Consul at Saigon, to the Foreign Office, in CO273/491/66922 (FO).

32 The members of the Syndicate were: Messrs Cie. de Commerce et Navigation d'Extrême-Orient Messrs Grammont & Cox Messrs Hale & Co. Messrs Société Commerciale Françpaise de l'lndochine Messrs Denis Frères Messrs Société Franco-Beige d'Extrême Orient The first four firms on the list were said to constitute an inner ring which dominated and directed the Syndicate.

33 AOM N41 468 ‘Interdiction d'exportation des riz. Divers, 1911–1920’.

34 Young Conf. Desp. of 26 July 1919 in CO273/483/51183 (Gov.); CO273/483/38589 (Gov.); CO273/483/39886 (Gov.).

35 CO273/485/73563 (Gov.); the value of the Straits dollar was 2s. 4d. The controlled price in Malaya was subsequently increased.

36 The Straits Times 12 Dec. 1919; The Malaya Tribune 11 12 1919.

37 Report by the Financial Advisor, W. J. F. Williamson, on the Siam Budget for 1919–1920, in CO273/491/59282 (FO) 15 Oct. 1919.

38 The full membership of the Board of Rice Control was as follows: HRH Prince Rajaburi Direkriddhi, The Minister of Agriculture Chao Phys Yomaraj, The Minister of Local Government Chao Phya Suirasih Visitsakdi, The Minister of the Interior W. J. F. Williamson, The Financial Adviser W. H. Graham, Adviser to the Ministry of Agriculture Phya Indra Montri [F. H. Giles], Director-General of the Revenue Department Phya Manopakarana-Nidhidhada, The Legal Adviser to His Majesty's Royal Household.

39 Lyle to S. of S. Conf. no. 85 (Tel.), 5 07 1919, in FO368/2180/98750 and Lyle to S. of S. Conf. no. 105, 24 June 1919, in FO368/2180/113156.

40 Lyle to S. of S. Conf. of 24 June 1919, in FO368/2180/113156.

41 Lyle to Curzon 24 June 1919, in CO273/491/46398 (FO) 8 08. 1919.

42 Lyle to S. of S. (Curzon), Conf. no. 142, 29 Aug. 1919, in FO368/2180/137604.

43 Lyle to S. of S. 2. Dec. 1919, transmitting Memo of Conversation between the Ag Consul General and the Rice Controller of 28 Nov. 1919, in FO368/2180/171461. Following this development no further use was made of the British buying combine. FO368/2180/173239.

44 Tel. Rev. Secy, Burma, to SG, India, R&A 30 Dec. 1919.

45 Viceroy to Secy to State for India, 12 Dec 1919, in Proc. R&A 06 1920, p. 195.

46 R&S 1434 Kershaw to Financial Secretary, 19 Feb. 1920, in IOR L/E/7/986; Revenue SG, Burma, to SG India R&A 30 12 1919 in Proc. R&A 06 1920.

47 Viceroy to India Office 12 12 1919, in IOR L/E/7/986; PCB 12 04 1920 p. 698 Under the 1920 control scheme importing countries were divided into three groups. Class A, which was given the highest priority, consisted of colonies with resident Indian populations: Ceylon, the Straits Settlements (and Malay States), Aden and its dependencies, Mauritius, the Fiji Islands, the Seychelles, South Africa, the Bahrain Islands, the East African Protectorate, Hong Kong, Zanzibar and Pemba. Class B included countries which routinely bought rice from India because it was the nearest source of supply, and certain places it was thought desirable to treat liberally for political reasons. Class B comprised the Red Sea and Persian Gulf ports of Turkey, Muscat, and Dubai, the Mekran coast, the rest of Arabia, Persia, German East Africa, Italian East Africa, French Somaliland, and Reunion. Class C, designated Miscellaneous Countries, included the United Kingdom, Cuba, the Australian Commonwealth, Java and Siam. (Proc. R&A 06 1920, pp. 221ff.) Provisional allotments for the first quarter of the scheme were: Class A 83,000 tons (including 40,000 tons for Ceylon and 20,000 for the Straits Settlements), Class B 3,300 tons, and Class C 95,000 tons. (SG India R&A to Rice Commisioner, Rangoon 2 Jan. 1920, Proc. R&A 06 1920.)

48 Proc. R&A June 1920 p. 179.

49 C. A. Innes, Joint Secy Govt of India, to Govts of Madras, Bombay and Bengal, 26 09. 1919, in Proc. R&A June 1920 p. 171. The share of annual pre-war exports for each Presidency was: Bengal 60.3%, Madras 28% and Bombay 11.7%. Prior to 1919 Bombay was importing some 220,000 tons of Burmese rice per year and exporting 67,000 tons of rice drawn from Bengal, the Central Provinces and Madras to the Middle East and Africa. Madras was importing Burmese rice to meet the needs of Malabar, South Konara, Cochin and Travancore, where local crops were inadequate, but each year exported an average of 160,000 tons of rice grown elsewhere in the Presidency to Ceylon. Bengal's rice exports before the war averaged 345,000 tons per year. Proc. R&A 06 1920 pp. 171, 179, 185, 189. Between 1916 and 1920 imports rose to 868,000 tons per year, while between 1921 and 1925 they fell to 548,000 tons per year. Wickizer, and Bennett, , Rice Economy, pp. 322–5.Google Scholar

50 Subsequent comment in the Annual Reports on the Maritime Trade and Customs Administration of Burma (IOR V/24/486) suggests that these fears were well founded.

51 Proc. R&A June 1920, p. 171.

52 Proc. R&A June 1920, p. 186.

53 IOR L/E/7/986 Tel. from Viceroy 7 02 1920, and Note by Kershaw, nd, c. 25 Feb. 1920.

54 Proc. R&A 07 1920, pp. 319, 388; IOR L/E/7/986 Tel. from Viceroy, R&A Dept, 3 April. 1920.

55 Proc. R&A April, 1920, pp. 153–5.

56 As of 03 9th, the Government of India was offering 114,000 tons of rice to Malaya and 210,000 tons to Ceylon, an improvement on earlier figures but still substantially less than the amounts requested by these colonies, 360,000 tons in each case.

57 Tel. from Sir W. Manning to Secy of State for Colonies (R&S1450/1920) dtd 15 Feb. 1920 in IOR L/E/7/986.

58 Viceroy, R&A Dept, Tel. to IO dtd 25 Feb. 1920, in IOR L/E/7/986.

59 Minute by Kershaw dtd 7 Jan. 1920 on IOR L/E/7/986.

60 Tel. to Viceroy dtd 27 Feb. 1920 and accompanying minute by Kershaw in IOR L/E/7/986.

61 Under Secy of State for India, Revenue Dept, letter of 8 March 1920 in CO54/837/12534.

62 CO273/499/13917 (Gov.); CO273/501/51915 (Gov.); CO273/502/61686 (Gov.). A minute on the Colonial Office files indicated that Malaya could no doubt manage to pay Rs 15 per cent ‘though it will severely pinch the resources even of the S.S. and F.M.S. (The high rate of exchange with India adds so greatly to the burden).’ CO54/837/12534.

63 Grist, D. H.,Malayan Agricultural Statistics, 1933, (Straits Settlements Department of Agriculture, Economic Series no. 5), Table 19.Google Scholar

64 Tomlinson, B. R., The Political Economy of the Raj, 1914–1947 (London: The Macmillan Press, 1979), pp. 65–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Revaluation of the rupee took place mainly because the value of silver had increased past the ‘melting point’ where the bullion value of the rupee exceeded its face value. Also see the Minute dtd 11 Feb. 1921 on CO273/503/2986 (Gov.) and Anstey, Vera, The Economic Development of India (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1942), pp. 422–3.Google Scholar

65 Memo on Food Control, 2 March 1920 by W. Peel, Food Controller, enclosed in Peel to Chief Secretary, FMS, 6 March 1920, in Sel. Sec. 1558/20. According to this document, the Straits government was paying S$315 per ton for Burmese rice and S$432 for Saigon rice as of March 1920.

66 The price of $1.26 per gantang applied to Singapore and Penang. Retailers elsewhere were permitted to add transport charges, and rice sold in Perak for 10–12 cents per gantang more than in Penang. FMS GG 18 May 1942 Not. 1942 and 1943.

67 Guillemard to Churchil 14 April 1922 in CO273/516/23171(Gov.).

68 CO273/503/2986 (Gov.) especially Viceroy to Guillemard, Conf. of 7 11. 1920, and Guillemard Viceroy, 18 12. 1920. The loss on the exchange rate was all the more aggravating because by Sep. 1920, the value of the rupee had fallen back to Is, Iod. See Tomlinson Political Economy…The tendency for officials in India to refer to colonial territories elsewhere as ‘foreign countries’ in the course of these discussions caused much irritation in Malaya and Ceylon. See, for example, the Tel. from SG India to SG Burma dtd 18 11. 1919 in Proc. R&A June 1920, p. 186.

69 Some speculators in fact paid more than the control price in the expectation that controls would be lifted at an early date, and when controls were left in force untill the end of the year much of this grain had to be sold at a loss. AR Buma 1920–1921, p. 104.

70 F. Lewisohn, presenting the Revised Financial Statement in PCB, 13 03 1920, and E. J. Holberton, PCB, 17 April 1920.

71 Rice prices elsewhere in Asia were 50% above, and in Europe double, prices in Burma. Rev. Secy, Burma, to SG India R&A, 20 Oct. 1920, in Proc. R&A July 1921, p. 29.

72 This price corresponded to Rs 458 per 100 baskets for the variety of milled rice known as Big Mills Specials.

73 SG Burma to SG India R&A, 24 Nov. 1920, and Govt of India R&A (Foodstuffs) Press Communiqué dtd 4 Dec. 1920 in Proc. R&A, July 1921, pp. 39, 43.

74 SG India R&A to Rev. Secy, Burma, 19 Nov. 1920 in Proc. R&A July 1921, p. 35.

75 Rev. Secy, Burma, to SG India R&A, 8 Jan. 1921, in Proc. R&A July, 1921, p. 65.

76 AR Burma 1920–1921, p. 104.

77 Viceroy to Secy of State for India, 2 July 1921 and 9 July 1921 in IOR L/E/1037.

78 PCB, 27 July, 1921, p. 867.

79 E. J. Turner, India Office, to SG India, Commerce Dept, 6 Oct. 1921, in IOR L/E/1037.

80 Revenue SG Burma to SG India, 16 Nov. 1921, in Proc. R&A Dec. 1921.

81 Proc. R&A July, 1921, p. 99.

82 During 1916–1920 rice exports from Korea and Taiwan avraged 357,000 metric tons per year, but between 1930 and 1935 these two Japanese colonies exported 1,614,000 metric tons per year. Japan's average annual imports for the latter period were 1,640,000 metric tons per year. Wickizer, and Bennet, , Rice Economy pp. 90–1, 320–3.Google Scholar The change was not entirely the result of incresed production of rice. Korean farmers were forced to consume sorghum and Taiwanese farmers to eat sweet potatoes in order to free rice for export to Japan. Hayami, Yujiro et al. , A Century of Agricutural Growth in Japan (Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 1975), pp. 63–4.Google Scholar

83 Wickizer, and Bennett, , Rice Economy, pp. 170, 342.Google Scholar

84 Ibid., pp. 272–3, 314–23.