剑桥大学期刊 (7)

JournalofSoutheastAsianStudies,33(2),pp297-314June2002.PrintedintheUnitedKingdom.©2002TheNationalUniversityofSingaporeOpiumandtheBeginningsofChineseCapitalisminSoutheastAsiaCarlA.TrockiThearticlesuggeststhatthedevelopmentofChinesecapitalisminnineteenth-centurySoutheastAsiawasintimatelyconnectedtotheparticipationofChinesemerchantsinthefinancingandoperationofopiumrevenuefarmingconcessions.Itexaminesthedevelopmentandstructureoftheopiumfarmingsystemasitoperatedintheregion.ThisarticledealswiththerelationshipbetweenopiumrevenuefarmingandthedevelopmentofcapitalistenterprisesinSoutheastAsia.ItexaminestherolewhichopiumplayedinthetransformationofallAsianeconomiesduringthelateeighteenthandnineteenthcenturies.WhilefewwoulddenythattheunprecedentedexpansionoftheopiumtradebyEuropeantradershadamajor,usuallydestructiveimpactonAsianeconomicsystemsandpoliticalandsocialinstitutions,thelong-termresultsofopiumintheAsian,particularlySoutheastAsian,economiesarelesswellunderstood.Mostspecifically,theopiumfarmingsystemswhichexistedinvirtuallyeverySoutheastAsianstate(aswellaspartsofChinaandIndia)wereimportantadjunctsofcapitalistdevelopmentintheregion.Thepracticeoffarmingoutportionsofthestate’srevenuewasacommononeinpre-modernSoutheastAsia.Inordertocollectataxfromtheirpopulationwithoutspendingscarceresourcesonbureaucracyandinfrastructure,mostcolonialgovernments,togetherwithindigenouspoliticalentities,preferredto‘farmout’revenuecollectiontoprivateindividuals.Theywouldauctionofftherighttocollectaspecifictaxortoholdthemonopolyonthedistributionandsaleofsomeexcisableitem,suchasliquororopium.Themonopolist,orfarmer,ashewascalled,providedhisownorganisationtocarryoutthetaskandchargedasmuchashefelteconomicallyrealistictotheconsumer,payinghisoverheadandrenttothegovernmentandpocketingtheremainderashisprofit.Thereweremanydifferenttypesoffarmsinnineteenth-centurySoutheastAsia,includingfarmsforliquor,pork,prostitution,gambling,markets,tolls,capitationtaxesandothers.Ofallthevariousfarmswhichwefindinnineteenth-centurySoutheastAsia,opiumwasbyfarthemostlucrative.Opiumgeneratedahighlevelofcashflowandthuscreatedlargepoolsofcapital.Therewere,then,numerouslinksbetweencapitalistdevelopmentinSoutheastAsiaandtheopiumfarmsandfarmers.Moreimportantly,however,thefarmsalsofinancedcommodityproductionandhelpedtogeneratethe297CarlA.TrockiisaProfessorintheSchoolofHumanitiesandHumanServices,QueenslandUniversityofTechnology,Carseldine,[e-mail]ocreateandfinancethestatestructuresthatprotectedbusinessmenandtheirprofits.IhavearguedelsewherethatfreetradeinportssuchasSingaporeandHongKongwaspossibleonlybecauseopiumrevenuesprovidedsuchreliableandlucrativeflowsofcashtothecolonialgovernments.Infact,allAsiangovernmentsdependeduponopiumfarmsformajorportionsoftheirrevenue.1Ifwelookonlyatthereturnstogovernmentsfromtheseinstitutions,itisclearthattheentirecolonialprojectwasheavilyreliantonopiumrevenues.Infact,wecouldevenarguethatitwouldhavebeenimpossiblewithoutthem.CertainlythiswasthecaseforSingaporeandtheotherStraitsSettlements,whereopiumaccountedforbetween30and60percentofthelocallycollectedrevenueineverysingleyearfortheentirecenturyafter1819,andgenerallyaveragedbetween40and50percentoftotalannualrevenues.Othercolonieswerelessdependentonopiumanddrewrevenuesfromavarietyofothersourcesincludingtrade,landrent,capitationandexportproduction.Nevertheless,opiumrevenuesstillcametomakeupanimportantandoftencrucialshareoftheircolonialbudget.Between1886and1895,theNetherlandsIndies’farmssupplied18percentofthecolony’srevenue.Thisfigureisbasedonthetotalrevenues,whichincludedprofitsfromcolonialenterprisesandtradingcommoditiesdeliveredtoHolland.Ifwelookonlyattaxrevenues,opiumactuallyconstitutedabout35percent.InFrenchCochinchinaopiumwasthesinglelargestrevenue-generatingoperationfortwodecades;between1861and1882theSaigonfarmcontributedabout30percentofthecolonialrevenues.InSiamtheopiumfarmgeneratedone-seventhofthetotalgovernmentrevenueandby1905-6ithadrisentonearlyone-fifth.TheopiumfarmswerelessimportantinBritishBurmaandthePhilippines,buttheystillgeneratedsignificantrevenues.2Bythe1880s,therewereanumberofrelativelydistincttypesofopiumfarmingsystemsinoperationinSoutheastAsia.AlthoughChinesecapitalistsranallofthefarms,notallconsumersofopiumwereChinese.TherewereareassuchasJava,centralSiamandperhapsCochinchinaandTonkinwherethemajorityoftheuserswereindigenousSoutheastAsians.Bycontrast,therewerethoseareassuchasthetinfieldsofwesternMalayaandthepepperandgambiervillagesofJohorandRiauwheretheconsumerswereexclusivelyChinese.Theethnicidentityoftheuserssignalledanimportant.2981CarlTrocki,‘TheCollapseofSingapore’sGreatSyndicate’,inTheRiseandFallofRevenueFarming:BusinessElitesandtheEmergenceoftheModernStateinSoutheastAsia,ed.JohnButcherandHowardDick(London:St.Martin’s,Press,1993),pp.166–81.2FiguresfortheNetherlandsIndiesarefromF.W.Diehl,‘RevenueFarmingandColonialFinancesintheNetherlandsEastIndies,1816-19