MALAY LAND TENURE. 107 



Chapter VI. 



THE LIABILITY OF THE CULTIVATOR TO 

 FORCED SERVICE. 



In a land regulation passed by the Governor in Council in the 

 Straits Settlements for the Settlement of Malacca (IX of 1830), 

 there occurs a clause which declares cultivators to be exempt 

 from forced labour. This regulation, if it ever had the force 

 of law, was repealed a few years afterwards, and none of the 

 Land Acts now in force in the Straits approach the subject 

 at all. Whether or not the liability to forced labour from 

 which Malacca cultivators were declared to be exempt in 1830, 

 still survives, though dormant, as one of the incidents of the 

 local customary tenure, is not a question of much importance 

 now, for there is little likelihood of any attempt being made 

 to enforce it on a large scale in a British Colony. But it is 

 clear that, if there had been no existing liability in 1830, there 

 would have been no necessity for special exemption. A code 

 of regulations for Penghulus, which the Dutch authorities 

 were about to introduce in Malacca just before the cession in 

 1825, contains a clause requiring the Penghulu to keep ail 

 roads in order and to call on the tenants to repair them. This, 

 too, assumes a pre-existing duty on the part of the tenants. 



Mr. Fullerton, Governor of Penang and subsequently of 

 the incorporated Settlements (1824 to 1830), recorded that, 

 under the Dutch Government in Malacca, services were required 

 and labour exacted, from the tenants ; that they were, in short, 

 kept in a state of vassalage and servitude quite inconsistent 

 with the encouragement of cultivation.* 



The cultivator or tenant, who was thus liable to be required 

 to work for the Government or superior proprietor, was the 

 holder of the proprietary right which has already been described. 

 In Malay States, the liability still exists, and, for the com- 

 plete understanding of the raHyat's position, it is necessary 

 to ascertain, as nearly as possible, what is the extent of 

 his liability to forced service, how far it is an incident of his 



*Journ. Ind. Arch., II, 740. 



