¹ The other ten states are Kedah, Perlis, Perak, Selangor, Negri Sembilan, Johore, Malacca, Pahang, Kelantan and Trengganu. Sarawak and Sabah which form East Malaysia, are not included in this discussion because of their different and more complex demography, history and political evolution.

² The population of Penang as at 31 December 1975 was 868,012 made up of 266,528 (30.7%) Malays, 487,869 (56.2%) Chinese, 99,802 (11.5%) Indians and 13,813 (1.6%) Others. Source: Annual Statistical Bulletin Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur, Government Printers, 1977), p. 8.Google Scholar

³ Although the MIC is also a partner in the BN coalition, the small Indian population and the scattered distribution which it represents makes it an insignificant partner. The MIC has in fact been allocated 1 State Assembly and no Parliamentary seat to contest in Penang.

⁴ By 1970, the ethnic composition of Georgetown's population was 13.8% Malay, 71.5% Chinese, 13.3% Indian and 1.4% Others. See Nagata, Judith, Malaysian Mosaic (Vancouver, University of British Columbia Press, 1979), p. 24Google Scholar. It is interesting to note that out of the combined population of Penang Island and Province Wellesley of 86,275 on 31 December 1883, the Malays comprised 58,137 (67.4%) as against the Chinese 11,010 (12.8%). Figures compiled from Newbold, J. J., British Settlements in the Straits of Malacca Vol I (Kuala Lumpur, Oxford University Press, 1971), pp. 54–5.Google Scholar

⁵ Part of the explanation for this could be attributed to the modus operandi of the first Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, prior to 1970. In this the Tunku advocated a quid pro quo division of political and economic interests between the Malays represented by UMNO and the Chinese represented by the MCA with mutual non-interference. It was felt that any articulation of the socio-economic problems of the Malays could lead to a counter articulation of the problem of inadequate political representation of the Chinese. Under such circumstances, a reappraisal of the quid pro quo arrangement was bound to eventuate with all its complex implications and consequences, and the Tunku was anxious to avoid all these to preserve his formula for a ‘happy Malaysia’. The Tunku also probably felt that Malay special privileges in the Constitution were an adequate solution to the socio-economic problems of the Malays. Although the Tunku's quid pro quo arrangement operated at Federal level, its impact was nevertheless felt in all states, including Penang. For details, see Vasil, R. K., Politics in a Plural Society: A Study of Non-Communal Political Parties in West Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur, Oxford University Press, 1971).Google Scholar

⁶ For a detailed and cogent account of the socio-economic problems, see articles, ‘Masalah Melayu Pulau Pinang: Kegelisahan and Kekecewan’, in Dewan Masyarakat, September 1976, pp. 22–8 and ‘Melayu Pulau Pinang: Antara Perjuangan, Simpati dan Bantuan’, in Dewan Masyarakat, 15 September 1982, pp. 5–19.

⁷ Dewan Masyarakat, 15 September 1982, p. 8.Google Scholar

⁸ Ibid., p. 11.

⁹ Ibid., p. 11. See also FIJAR, October 1981, p. 9.

¹⁰ Dewan Masyarakat, 15 September 1982, pp. 5–6.Google Scholar

¹¹ The Penang Constitution does not provide for the appointment of a Deputy Chief Minister. This has, however, not deterred Penang UMNO from voicing this demand since a precedent had been set in 1969 when Dr Lim Chong Eu on assuming the Chief Ministership of Penang for the Gerakan, appointed a Malay Gerakan state assemblyman, Mustapha Hussain as his deputy. Dr Lim's measure at that time was to allay whatever Malay fears in Penang that political power had left them, given the defeat of the Penang Alliance in the 1969 elections. It was also to show that the Gerakan was a genuinely non-communal party.

¹² For details of the MCA/Gerakan rivalry at Federal level, see Hing, Lee Kam, ‘The Peninsular Non-Malay Parties’ in Crouch, Harold, Hing, Lee Kam and Ong, Michael (eds), Malaysian Politics and the 1978 Election (Kuala Lumpur, Oxford University Press, 1980), pp. 176–212.Google Scholar

¹³ Teik, Goh Cheng, Integration in a Plural Society: The Chinese in Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur, Straits Echo Press, 1978).Google Scholar

¹⁴ It is interesting to note that prior to 1969, the MCA in Penang had come under a similar charge from the non-Malay opposition, including Dr Lim Chong Eu who was then leader of the United Democratic Party (UDP).

¹⁵ In June 1975, 6 years after the Gerakan had come into power in Penang, there were 98 factories sited on 653 acres of land valued at $M 282.4 million employing a total of 28,157 workers of all races. 2,200 hotel rooms had been constructed to accommodate the approximately 100,000 tourists to Penang for the same period. By contrast, the MCA-led administration of 12 years from 1957 to 1969 had a record of 15 factories sited on 55 acres of land valued at $M 22.5 million employing a total of 4,500 workers of all races. 1,450 hotel rooms had catered for approximately 32,000 tourists. Dewan Masyarakat, 15 November 1975, p. 10.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See interview with Badawi, Datuk Abdullah Ahmad in Dewan Masyarakat, 15 09 1982, pp. 16–18.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ibid., pp. 18 and 11.

¹⁸ Ibid., p. 12.

¹⁹ Ibid.

²⁰ See interview with Dr Mahathir Mohamad in New Straits Times, 27 November 1981.

²¹ The DAP in Penang through its leader, Karpal Singh who is also the party's legal adviser, has threatened to take legal action should the Federal/State BN decide to appoint a Deputy Chief Minister.

²² This challenge was issued by Lim Kean Siew on 9 May 1978 to the Gerakan. For details, see Crouch, , Lee, and Ong, (eds), Malaysian Politics, p. 202.Google Scholar

²³ New Straits Times, 31 January 1982.

²⁴ Again the comparison of the Gerakan's performance with that of the MCA appeared to be the criterion for Federal UMNO's satisfaction. The Malay participation in the hotel industry in Penang had risen from 2.9% in 1968 in 16.1% in 1974. For the same period, the percentage of Malay factory workers rose from 15.7 to 33.9 while at another level concerning 16 kinds of jobs in the public sector in Penang, the Malay employment figures increased approximately 3 times from 7,145 to 22,730. By comparison, the non-Malay increase rate was lower from 15,806 to 37,221. Dewan Masyarakat, 15 November 75, p. 10.Google Scholar

²⁵ There is a possibility, however, that Federal UMNO's perception of the Gerakan may change in the future, causing it to regard the Gerakan as no more overtly pro-Chinese than the MCA or DAP. This possibility could be attributed to the remark of the Gerakan's Deputy Secretary-General, Dr Goh Cheng Teik, that the Gerakan should represent Chinese political interests in the BN while the MCA concentrate on business interests. New Straits Times, 21 December 1981. While this remark might be off-the-cuff in the heat of the polemics of the MCA/Gerakan rivalry, the incorporation of 2 staunch supporters of the controversial Chinese-medium Merdeka University project (opposed by UMNO) into the Gerakan to contest the 1982 elections would nevertheless cast doubts in Federal UMNO that the Gerakan was a genuinely non-communal party.