In both African and Asian colonies until the late 19th century, colonial medicine operated pragmatically to meet the medical needs first of colonial officers and troops, immigrant settlers, and laborers responsible for economic development, then of indigenous populations when their ill health threatened the well-being of the expatriate population. Since the turn of the century, however, the consequences of colonial expansion and development for indigenous people's health had become increasingly apparent, and disease control and public health programs were expanded in this light. These programs increased government surveillance of populations at both community and household levels. As a consequence, colonial states extended institutional oversight and induced dependency through public health measures. Drawing on my own work on colonial Malaya, I illustrate developments in public health and their links to the moral logic of colonialism and its complementarity to the political economy.
This article is concerned with the establishment and extension of health care and medical services in British colonial Malaya. Initially, medical care was provided for the colonial elite and those in their direct employment. With the expansion of colonial control beyond trade centers into the hinterland and with the growth of agriculture and mining. Western medicine was extended both to labor involved in these export industries and to others whose ill health might jeopardize the welfare of the colonists. Public health programs in the twentieth century continued to focus on medical problems that had direct impact on the colonial economy, but programs were extended to ensure the reproduction as well as the maintenance of the labor force. This article develops the notion of a legitimation vacuum, and the role of the state provision of social services, including medical services, in legitimizing colonial presence and control.
In the last decade factory owners, in response to brand-name Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) parameters, have joined associations that verify (through a monitoring and audit system) that management does not exploit labour. There have been no reports of violations of codes of conduct concerning Malaysian workers but for foreign workers on contract there are certain areas that have been reported. These areas, including trade union membership, the withholding of workers' passports and unsuitable accommodation, generally escape notice because auditors who monitor factory compliance do not question the terms of contracts as long as they comply with national labour standards. This paper is based on research with foreign workers in Malaysia and argues that despite the success of the anti-sweatshop movement in a global context, the neo-liberal state in Malaysia continues to place certain restrictions on transnational labour migrants which breach garment industry codes of conduct. Available evidence does not support the assumption that CSR practices provide sufficient protection for both citizen and foreign workers on contract in the garment industry.