Emerging Trends of Urbanisation in Malaysia

Jamaliah Jaafar

Abstract

This paper assesses the changing trends and levels of urbanisation in Malaysia
utilizing data from the population censuses at four points in time – 1970, 1980, 1991 and
2000. In general, the urban population change occurs as a result of the interaction of spatial
and demographic phenomena. The spatial phenomenon affecting population change is the
reclassification of urban areas such as the upgrading of rural localities to the urban strata,
annexation of areas to previous urban centres as well as boundary changes of the urban
centres. The demographic phenomenon affecting population change is natural increase and
migration. Data from the population censuses show that urbanisation levels in Malaysia are
on the rise. The urban population in Malaysia increased by 11 percentage points from 51 per
cent in 1991 to 62 per cent in 2000. Compared to other countries, Malaysia does not
experience the emergence of a one all-dominant megacity as urban centres in Malaysia are
spatially well distributed, and metropolitan towns are located in almost all states with some of
them being state capitals.

1. Introduction

Urbanization and urban growth are phenomena of increasing concern to both

planners and policy makers alike since trends and patterns of urbanization have
wide ranging implications on socio-economic development. During the past
decades, both the scale and pattern of urban growth in Malaysia were
transformed continuously and with increasing rapidity. Like many other countries,
the growth of the urban population in Malaysia was much more rapid than that of
the population growth in rural areas. The extent of growth in some urban centres
was not just seen within their legal boundaries but had led to a spillover of the
population into their peripheries. This situation can be attributed to two factors:
firstly, the availability of vast employment opportunities which drew migrants from
the rural areas to settle in these peripheries and, secondly, the population moving
away from the densely populated urban core centres to settle in the outer limits of
their urban boundaries.

2. Definitions of urban areas

Prior to the 1970 Population Census, the definition of urban areas used in the
population censuses refers to gazetted areas which comprised of local
administrative units with a population of 1,000 persons or above. These gazetted
areas, each under the jurisdiction of a local authority, by and large, were
classified on the basis of their urban characteristics. However, for the 1970
Census and subsequently the 1980 Census, the criterion for a minimum
population for a gazetted area to be considered as an urban area was increased
to 10,000. This change was to reflect a more realistic level of urbanisation
because settlements with a population size below this figure often displayed rural
socio-economic characteristics. In addition, the urban threshold of 1,000 persons
would have over-emphasised the degree of urbanisation in the country.

43
With the introduction of the Local Government Act, 1976 (Act 171) in Peninsular
Malaysia, which called for a restructuring of local authorities, the scenario of
urbanisation levels changed dramatically. This Act resulted in instances whereby
extensions of boundaries included areas exhibiting rural characteristics within the
gazetted areas, thereby creating an ‘overbounding’ effect of urban areas.
Ignoring this restructuring would, on the other hand, result in the ‘underbounding’
of urban areas as the process of urban sprawl would be disregarded. Similarly,
the same problems were also created by the restructuring of local authorities
under the Local Government Ordinance, 1961 for Sabah and the Local Authority
Ordinance, 1977 for Sarawak. In order to reflect a more realistic situation of
urbanisation, areas which were overbounded were adjusted in the 1991 Census.

Hence, the 1991 Population Census saw a new definition of urban areas which
was introduced to reflect a more realistic level of urbanisation. This definition was
drawn up after several in-depth studies had been carried out to identify the most
suitable characteristics to be used for determining urban areas.

As a result, the definition of urban areas used in the 1991 Census, refers to
gazetted areas and their adjoining built-up areas with a combined population of
10,000 persons or more. Built-up areas were defined as areas contiguous to a
gazetted area which had at least 60 per cent of their population (aged 10 years or
more) having modern toilet facilities. However, several exceptions were made to
the above definition. Gazetted areas which cover entire administrative districts
and areas gazetted prior to the implementation of the restructuring of local
authorities under the respective Local Government Act/Ordinance in Malaysia,
together with their adjoining built-up areas and having a combined population of
10,000 persons or more were classified as urban areas.

3. Overall trends and levels of urbanisation

Due to the different thresholds in defining urban areas, data prior to the 1970
Census was adjusted to reflect a common urban population cut-off of 10,000
persons or more to review the changes in the levels and trends in urbanisation
over time (Table 1).

In addition, the 1980 data on urban areas have been adjusted to take into
account extended areas which have been omitted during the preparation of the
1980 Census due to the late notification of these extended areas from the local
authorities. As such, the level of urbanisation for 1980 in this article differs slightly
from those published in the official census reports. The rates published in the
official census reports are shown in parenthesis in Table 1.

Between 1970 and 2000, the share of the urban population in Malaysia rose
dramatically from 26.8 per cent to 61.8 per cent. However, the increase in the
urban population was more pronounced during the 1980-2000 period. The sharp
increase in the level of urbanisation from 35.8 per cent to 61.8 per cent in this
period was largely attributed to the new definition of urban areas in 1991 where
built-up areas with urban characteristics were included (Figure 1).

44
 Table 1: Urbanisation levels, urban population growth and
tempo of urbanisation, Malaysia

Year Proportion Average annual intercensal Tempo

of population in urban population growth rate of urbanisation
areas (per cent) (per cent)
(per cent)
Malaysia
1970 26.8 : :
1980 35.8 (34.2) 5.2 (3.0) 2.9 (2.4)
1991 50.7 5.8 (6.2) 3.2 (3.6)
2000 61.8 4.8 2.2

Footnote: Figures in parenthesis refer to data released earlier in the official census reports.

Figure 1(a): Distribution of population by stratum,

Malaysia, 1970 dan 1980

100%
26.8 35.8
80%
60%
40% 73.2 64.2
20%
0%
1970 1980
Year

Rural Urban

Figure 1(b): Distribution of population by stratum,

Malaysia, 1991 dan 2000

100%
80% 37.7 36.7
60% 13.0 25.2
40%
20% 49.3 38.2
0%
1991 2000
Year

Rural Urban built-up areas Urban core

Variations in the rate of urban population growth provide another dimension on

the nature of the change in the level of urbanisation over time. A commonly used
indicator of urban population growth is the tempo of urbanisation which is a
measure of the difference in the growth rate of the urban population and that of
the total population. The urban growth rates and tempo of urbanisation during the
intercensal periods are also shown in Table 1.

45
4. Patterns of urbanisation

In general, the growth of the urban population in Malaysia prior to the Second
World War was mainly attributed to the growth of the tin and rubber industry
which attracted immigrants from other countries. The post-war intercensal period
of 1947-1957 witnessed an upsurge in the average annual growth rate of the
urban population, which increased to 5.8 per cent from 3.1 per cent attained
during the intercensal period of 1931-1947. This was largely attributed to the
relocation of people from the remote rural villages to the security of the towns
when a state of emergency was imposed to counter communist insurgency in the
country in 1948. Due to this increase, the tempo of urbanisation rose sharply from
1.4 per cent to 3.4 per cent. The relatively low urban population growth rate of 3.2
per cent seen during the 1957-1970 period can be explained by the normalization
of conditions after Malaysia gained her independence from the British.

From the 1970s, the average annual growth rate of the urban population as well
as the tempo of urbanisation increased. Tables 2 and 3 present the levels and
tempo of urbanisation for each of the fifteen states/federal territories of Malaysia
in the 1970, 1980, 1991 and 2000 Censuses. In 1991, with the exception of Perlis
and Pahang, almost all states had at least a third of their population residing in
urban areas. Apart from the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur which is also the
nation’s capital city, the state of Selangor was the most urbanised with 75.3 per
cent followed closely by the state of Penang which had 75.0 per cent of its
population residing in urban areas. In 2000, all states had at least a third of their
population residing in urban areas. Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur was the
most urbanised in 2000 with 100.0 per cent of the area classified as urban,
followed by the state of Selangor (88.3 per cent) and Penang (79.5 per cent).
Figure 2 shows the ranking of the states in Malaysia according to urbanisation
levels in the 1991 and 2000 Censuses.

Between the 1970 dan 1980 Censuses, several states, such as Selangor and
Terengganu, showed sharp increases in their levels of urbanisation. While the
rise in Selangor can be attributed mainly to the increase in the number of urban
towns due to economic growth, the increase in Terengganu was mainly due to
the large expansion in the administrative boundaries of its urban areas.

Table 2 further illustrates that, using the 1980 definition, the level of urbanisation
in Malaysia in 1991 would be merely 36.3 per cent. This would indicate an
increase of only 0.5 percentage points during the last eleven years, which seems
unrealistically low in view of the development process that had occurred during
this period in Malaysia. In fact, several states would have shown decreases in
urbanisation levels if the definition had not been revised in 1991. On the other
hand, if the 1991 definition was applied to the 1980 Census, the level of
urbanisation of the country in 1980 would have been 38.8 per cent, a difference
of 3 percentage points between the two definitions of urban areas. The state
which showed the largest change if the new definition was to be applied in 1980
would be Penang, for which the proportion of urban population increased by 8.6
percentage points from 47.5 per cent to 56.1 per cent.

46
 Table 2: Level of urbanisation by state, Malaysia,
1970, 1980, 1991 dan 2000

Percentage of urban population

State 1980 1991
1970 1970/1980 1991 1970/1980 1991 2000
definition definition definition definition
Johor 26.3 35.2 37.5 32.1 47.8 63.9
Kedah 12.6 22.5 23.0 22.1 32.5 38.7
Kelantan 15.1 28.1 28.1 28.7 33.5 33.5
Melaka 25.1 23.8 27.2 17.9 38.7 67.3
Negeri Sembilan 21.6 32.6 35.9 33.5 42.0 55.0
Pahang 19.0 26.1 26.7 25.9 30.4 42.1
Perak 27.5 33.8 36.4 36.7 53.6 59.5
Perlis : 8.9 8.9 7.8 26.6 33.8
Penang 51.0 47.5 56.1 39.5 75.0 79.5
Sabah 16.9 19.9 24.4 21.9 33.2 48.3
Sarawak 15.5 18.0 23.9 24.5 37.5 47.9
Selangor 9.5 40.9 46.3 49.4 75.2 88.3
Terengganu 27.0 42.9 42.9 36.9 44.5 49.4
Federal Territory of
- K.Lumpur 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
- Labuan : 46.3 46.3 48.4 48.4 76.8
Malaysia 26.8 35.8 38.8 36.3 50.7 61.8

Figure 2: Ranking of urbanisation levels by state,

Malaysia, 1991 dan 2000

FTKL
1 FTKL
2 Selangor
Selangor
3 Penang
Penang
4 FTLabuan
Perak
5 Melaka
FTLabuan
6 Johor
Johor
Perak
7 2000
Rank

Terengganu
8 N.Sembilan 1991
N. Sembilan
9 Terengganu
Melaka
10 Sabah
Sarawak
11 Sarawak
Sabah
12 Pahang
Kedah
13 Kedah
Pahang
14 Perlis
Perlis

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Percentage of urban population

During the period 1980-1991, by using the 1991 definition of urban areas, the
urban population grew at a faster rate of 5.1 per cent per annum compared to
the average and growth rate of the total population for the country as a whole (2.6
per cent) as shown in Table 3. During the period 1991-2000, the urban population
also grew at a faster rate of 4.8 per cent. However, a comparison with the urban
growth rates during the last intercensal period showed that the tempo of
urbanisation actually declined marginally from 2.9 per cent for the 1970-1980

47
period to 2.5 per cent for the 1980-1991 period and 2.2 per cent for the 1991-
2000 period.

Table 3: Tempo of urbanisation by state, Malaysia, 1970-2000

Average annual growth rates Tempo of urbanisation

(per cent) (per cent)
State Urban population Total population
1970- 1980- 1991- 1970- 1980- 1991- 1970- 1980- 1991-
1980 1991+ 2000+ 1980 1991 2000 1980 1991+ 2000+
Johor 5.1 4.7 5.6 2.1 2.5 2.4 3.0 2.2 3.2
Kedah 7.0 4.9 4.0 1.2 1.7 2.1 5.8 3.2 1.9
Kelantan 8.5 4.5 1.0 2.3 2.9 1.0 6.2 1.6 0.0
Melaka 0.5 4.3 8.1 1.0 1.1 1.9 -0.5 3.2 6.2
Negeri 5.5 3.5 5.0 1.4 2.1 2.0 4.1 1.4 3.0
Sembilan
Pahang 7.4 4.0 5.5 4.2 2.8 1.8 3.2 1.2 3.7
Perak 3.1 4.2 2.0 1.1 0.7 0.9 2.0 3.5 1.1
Perlis : 12.1 3.5 1.8 2.2 0.8 : 9.9 2.7
Penang 0.8 4.2 2.2 1.5 1.5 1.6 -0.7 2.7 0.6
Sabah 5.4 8.5 8.0 3.8 5.7 3.8 1.6 2.8 4.2
Sarawak 3.9 6.7 5.0 2.4 2.6 2.3 1.5 4.1 2.7
Selangor 18.3 8.7 7.8 3.7 4.3 6.0 14.6 4.4 1.8
Terengganu 7.2 3.8 2.7 2.6 3.4 1.5 4.6 0.4 1.2
Federal
Territory of
-K. Lumpur 3.5 2.0 1.4 : 2.0 1.4 : 0.0 0.0
-Labuan : 7.0 8.0 4.3 6.5 2.9 : 0.5 5.1
Malaysia 5.2 5.1 4.8 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.9 2.5 2.2
Note: + Base on 1991 definition of urban areas.

In terms of urban population growth, Perlis, Selangor and Sabah were the states
with the highest growth in urban population between 1980 and 1991. Between
1991 to 2000, the states of Melaka, Sabah, Federal Territory of Labuan and
Selangor registered the highest growths in urban population (Table 3). The
increase in the urban population of these states was attributed to the movement
of in-migrants, both internal and international, to the urban centres as well as the
built-up areas contiguous to the core towns.

The state with the highest tempo of urbanisation for the period 1980-1991 was
Perlis (9.9 per cent). This was followed by Selangor (4.4 per cent). Between the
1991-2000 period, Melaka was the state with the highest tempo of urbanisation of
6.2 per cent followed by Wilayah Persekutuan Labuan 5.1 per cent. The high
tempo of urbanisation was attributed to the rapid economic development in the
state which attracted a large inflow of migrants especially to the urban areas as
well as the sharp rise in the number of urban towns.

5. Urban population by size class

The increase in the number of urban centres and the growth of the urban
population within each population size class had socio-economic implications on
the provision of adequate housing, sanitary facilities and amenities, garbage
disposal, health and educational facilities, public transportation as well as other
infrastructure.

48
 Table 4 outlined the changes in the number of urban towns across population
size class during the intercensal period 1980-2000. The majority of towns moved
up the urban hierarchy, that is, by moving higher up in the size population
classification.

Table 4: Comparison of number of urban centres by population

size class, Malaysia, 1980, 1991 dan 2000

1980 1991 2000

Population Number Population Per cent Number Population Per cent Number Population Per cent
of urban (‘000) distribution of urban (‘000) distribution of urban (‘000) distribution
size class centres of urban centres of urban centres of urban
population population population
150,000 & lebih 9 2,488.8 56 15 4,799.4 54 27 8,959.1 65
75,000 – 149,999 6 624.4 14 15 1,665.5 19 13 1,387.3 10
50,000 – 74,999 8 489.7 11 9 538.0 6 13 775.5 6
25,000 – 49,999 10 310.0 7 23 810.0 9 34 1,248.2 9
10,000 – 24,999 39 579.5 13 67 1,085.8 12 83 1,390.2 10
All urban areas 72 4,492.4 100 129 8,898.6 100 170 13,760.3 100

The distribution of the urban population of Malaysia in 2000 can be broadly

summarized in Table 4 which gives the proportion of the urban population in each
size class as compared with the situation in the 1980 and 1991 Censuses. The
number of urban towns in the size classes 75,000 persons and above rose
sharply from 15 urban towns to 40 urban towns during the intercensal period
1980-2000. This phenomenon is a product of the change in definition as well as
population growth due to migration. It is interesting to note that although more
than 65 per cent of Malaysia’s urban population in 2000 resided in towns in the
size class of 150,000 persons and above, Malaysia did not experience the
emergence of one all-dominant megacity in the pattern of urbanisation. This is
because the urban population of Malaysia is well distributed spatially and is not
concentrated in one or two major cities only.

The distribution of the number of urban centres by population size class for the
states in Malaysia in 2000 is shown in Table 5. Taking into account all the size
classes, Selangor by far had the highest number of urban centres in the country
followed by Johor and Perak. In the metropolitan category i.e. population size
class of 75,000 persons and above, Selangor topped the list with ten urban
centres.

Although a high number of urban centres were found in the 10,000-24,999

persons category, the urban population was not concentrated in that size class.
In 2000, all states, with the exception of Perlis and Melaka, had more than half of
their urban population in the size class of 75,000 persons and above (Table 5).

49
 Table 5: Distribution of urban centres by population size class
by state, Malaysia, 2000

500,000 150,000- 75,000- 50,000- 25,000- 10,000- Total

State dan lebih 499,999 149,999 74,999 49,999 24,999
Number of urban centres
Johor 1 1 4 2 5 10 23
Kedah - 2 1 - 2 3 8
Kelantan - 1 - - 1 8 10
Melaka - - 1 - 4 8 13
Negeri - 1 - 1 1 3 6
Sembilan
Pahang - 1 - - 5 4 10
Perak 1 1 - 1 6 9 18
Perlis - - - 1 - 1 2
P.Pinang - 2 4 1 2 5 14
Sabah - 3 - 3 3 6 15
Sarawak - 3 1 - - 6 10
Selangor 1 7 2 1 5 16 32
Terengganu - 1 - 2 - 4 7
Federal
Territory of
- K. Lumpur 1 : : : : : 1
- Labuan : : : 1 : : 1
Malaysia 4 23 13 13 34 83 170
Per cent distribution of urban population Number
(‘000)
Johor 38 12 24 6 12 9 1,713.7
Kedah - 59 19 - 13 8 609.0
Kelantan - 58 - - 8 34 430.9
Melaka - - 37 - 33 31 404.8
Negeri - 64 - 15 7 14 456.0
Sembilan
Pahang - 56 - - 32 12 512.5
Perak 46 17 - 5 17 14 1,163.3
Perlis - - - 81 - 19 67.0
P.Pinang - 36 42 6 8 9 979.2
Sabah - 67 - 16 10 7 1,186.9
Sarawak - 79 11 - - 11 963.8
Selangor 18 60 6 2 6 8 3,477.9
Terengganu - 59 - 26 - 15 435.0
Fedaral
Territory of
- K. Lumpur 100 : : : : : 1,305.8
- Labuan : : : 100 : : 54.8
Malaysia 23 42 10 6 9 10 13,760.3

6. Metropolitan towns in Malaysia

The number of metropolitan towns in Peninsular Malaysia which have a minimum

population size of 150,000 persons as identified in the 2000 Census, increased
markedly from 12 in 1991 to 21 in 2000, while those in Sarawak increased from 1
to 3. However in Sabah, there were three towns classified as metropolitan
between 1991 and 2000. In 2000, there were a total of 27 metropolitan towns, in
the population size class of 150,000 persons and above in Malaysia (Table 6).

50
 Table 6: Ranking of metropolitan towns, Malaysia, 2000

Rank Metropolitan towns Population Rank Metropolitan Population

(‘000) towns (‘000)
1 Kuala Lumpur 1,305.8 15 Kota Bharu 251.8
2 Johor Bahru 642.9 16 Tawau 213.7
3 Klang 626.7 17 Kajang & Sg. Chua 205.7
4 Ipoh 536.8 18 Taiping 199.3
5 Subang Jaya 437.1 19 Kluang 198.2
6 Petaling Jaya 432.6 20 Alor Setar 186.4
7 Kuching 422.2 21 Georgetown 181.4
8 Ampang Jaya 357.9 22 Sungai Petani 175.0
9 Shah Alam 314.4 23 Selayang Baru 174.6
10 Kota Kinabalu 306.9 24 Batu 9 Cheras/Sg. Raya/ Suntex 174.0
11 Seremban 290.7 25 Miri 169.0
12 Kuantan 288.7 26 Sibu 167.4
13 Sandakan 276.8 27 Bukit Mertajam 167.3
14 Kuala Terengganu 255.5

In 2000, Kuala Lumpur was the primate city with a population size of almost two
times that of the next two largest cities, Johor Bahru and Klang (Figure 3). It is
also noted that some of these largest metropolitan towns are also state capitals.

Figure 3: Ranking of metropolitan towns, Malaysia, 2000

1400 Kuala Lumpur

1200
Population ('000)

1000
Johor
800 Bahru Klang
Ipoh Subang
600 Jaya Petaling Kuching Ampang Shah Kota
Jaya Alam Kinabalu
400
200
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Rank

Kuala Johor Klang Ipoh Subang Petaling Kuching Ampang Shah Kota
Lumpur Bahru Jaya Jaya Alam Kinabalu
Population 1,305.8 642.9 626.7 536.8 437.1 432.6 422.2 357.9 314.4 306.9
(‘000)

In the study of urbanisation, it is important to understand the relationship of

primate urban centre and other urban centres. This relationship can be
summarised by an index known as Primacy Index (PI). This index is related to the
rank-size rule and measures the concentration of population in the primate city in
relation to the rest of the other cities. The greater the index value, the greater is
the concentration in the largest city. For a group of cities/towns, the PI is the
quotient of the largest city divided by the summation of the population of the
second and subsequent cities. The rank-size rule means that the second-ranked
city is half the population size of the primate city, the third-ranked city is one-third
in size and so on.

51
Table 7 depicts the population concentration of the largest metropolitan town in
Malaysia in relation to the next ten metropolitan towns in 1991 and 2000. Under
the rank-size rule condition for the 11 largest cities, the PI would be 0.5, that is,
C1/(C2 + C3 + C4 + … C11). The PI for the top 11 metropolitan towns in 1980 was
0.47; this implies that the situation in 1980 was very close to the rank-size rule
condition. Contrary to the expectation that the PI over the intercensal period
would increase, the index for the largest city in relation to the next ten
metropolitan towns in 1991 and 2000 fell to 0.38 and 0.30 respectively; this
implies that the concentration of population in the primate city was less than that
of 1980 and it had moved away from the rank-size rule condition. The drop in the
index was attributed to several factors. Firstly, the rate of population growth for
the primate city, that is, Kuala Lumpur, declined markedly over the 1980-2000
period due to the effects of net out-migration. Secondly, the high growth rate of
the other metropolitan towns brought about by large rural to urban migration and
to a smaller extent, expansion of the town boundaries also contributed to the
decline in the index for 1991 and 2000.

Table 7: Primacy Index for major metropolitan towns, Malaysia,

2000 and 1991

Rank 2000 1991

(k) Metropolitan towns Population Metropolitan towns Population
(‘000) (‘000)
1 Kuala Lumpur 1,305.8 Kuala Lumpur 1,145.3
2 Johor Bahru 642.9 Ipoh 468.8
3 Klang 626.7 Johor Bahru 441.7
4 Ipoh 536.8 Klang 368.4
5 Subang Jaya 437.1 Petaling Jaya 351.0
6 Petaling Jaya 432.6 Kuching 277.9
7 Kuching 422.2 Kota Bharu 234.6
8 Ampang Jaya 357.9 K.Terengganu 228.1
9 Shah Alam 314.4 Georgetown 219.6
10 Kota Kinabalu 306.9 Kuantan 202.4
11 Seremban 290.7 Seremban 193.2
Primacy Index = 0.30 Primacy Index = 0.38
Note: The formula for rank-size rule is ck = (c1/k) and the Primacy Index (PI) = c1/(Σck) where c1 is
the population of the largest city and ck is the population of the kth city and k = 2,3,…,n.

Table 8 traces the growth trends of the 12 largest metropolitan towns in

Peninsular Malaysia as identified in the 2000 Census since the 1911 Census.
Continuous growth was seen in the population over the past eight decades. The
sudden increase in the growth rates of these metropolitan towns over the period
1947-1957 was an effect of the post-World War urban development attributed to
the growth of secondary industries. Another reason contributing to the sudden
upsurge in urban population growth was also the expansion of boundaries in the
respective urban areas. However, the high growth rates of the metropolitan towns
of Kuala Lumpur, Kota Bharu, Kuala Terengganu and Kuantan during the 1970-
1980 period was due mainly to the restructuring of the local authorities where the
boundaries under their jurisdiction were extensively extended.

52
 Table 8: Population and rates of change of major metropolitan
towns, Peninsular Malaysia, 1911 to 2000

Metropolitan Population (‘000)

towns 1911 1921 1931 1947 1957 1970 1980 1991 2000
Kuala Lumpur 46.7 80.4 111.4 176.0 316.2 451.8 919.6 1145.3 1305.8
Johor Bahru 9.4 15.3 21.5 38.8 75.1 136.2 246.4 441.7 642.9
Klang 7.7 11.7 20.9 33.5 75.6 113.6 192.1 368.4 626.7
Ipoh 24.0 36.9 53.2 80.9 125.8 248.0 293.8 468.8 536.8
Subang Jaya : : : : : : : 79.0 437.1
Petaling Jaya : : : : 16.6 92.7 207.8 351.0 432.6
Ampang Jaya : : : : : : : 95.3 357.9
Shah Alam : : : : : : : 158.4 314.4
Seremban 8.7 17.3 21.5 35.3 52.0 80.9 132.9 193.2 290.7
Kuantan : : : 8.1 23.1 43.3 131.5 202.4 288.7
Kuala 14.0 12.5 14.0 27.0 29.4 53.3 180.3 228.1 255.5
Terengganu
Kota Bharu 12.5 10.8 14.8 22.8 38.1 55.1 167.9 234.6 251.8
Average annual growth rates (per cent)
1911-21 1921-31 1931-47 1947-57 1957-70 1970-80 1980-91 1991-
2000
Kuala Lumpur 5.4 3.3 2.9 5.8 2.7 7.1 2.0 1.5
Johor Bahru 4.9 3.4 3.7 6.6 4.6 5.9 5.3 4.2
Klang 4.2 5.8 2.9 8.1 3.1 5.2 5.9 5.9
Ipoh 4.3 3.7 2.6 4.4 4.6 1.7 4.2 1.5
Subang Jaya : : : : : : : 19.0
Petaling Jaya : : : : 13.2 8.1 4.8 2.3
Ampang Jaya : : : : : : : 14.7
Shah Alam : : : : : : : 7.6
Seremban 6.9 2.2 3.1 3.9 3.4 5.0 3.4 4.5
Kuantan : : : 10.5 4.8 11.1 3.9 3.9
Kuala -1.1 1.1 4.1 0.8 4.6 12.2 2.1 1.3
Terengganu
Kota Bharu -1.5 3.2 2.7 5.1 2.8 11.1 3.0 0.8

7. Conclusion

Data from the population censuses show that urbanisation levels in Malaysia are
on the rise. The urban population in Malaysia increased by 11 percentage points
from 51 per cent in 1991 to 62 per cent in 2000.

It is evident from the 2000 Census that Malaysia does not experience the
emergence of a one all-dominant megacity as urban centres in Malaysia are
spatially well distributed, and metropolitan towns are located in almost all states
with some of them being state capitals.

In conclusion, it can be said that the rapid growth of the urban population will
exert pressure on the provision of adequate housing, sanitary facilities and
amenities, proper drainage, garbage disposal, health and educational facilities as
well as other infrastructure. In this regard, the Malaysian Government has to
undertake ongoing projects related to these aspects including environmental
issues on smoke, gas emission as well as noise and water pollution caused by
increased urbanisation and expanding industries.

Acknowledgement

The writer acknowledged the support and cooperation of the Population and
Housing Census Division, Department of Statistics Malaysia in providing the data
required for the article.

53
References

Chander R. (1977) 1970 general report, population census of Malaysia. Volume1,

Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.

Fernandez D.Z. Hawley A.H. and Predaza S. (1976) The population of Malaysia.
Research Paper No. 10, Department of Statistics, Kuala Lumpur.

Kawas, V. (2003) Trend and pattern in the levels of urbanisation in the

Northeastern Hill States of India and associated urban planning issues.
Centre for Development Alternatives, Ahmedabad, India.

Khoo S.G. (1995) Population and housing census of Malaysia 1991, general
report of the population census, volume 1, Department of Statistics, Kuala
Lumpur.

Khoo T.H. (1986) Population and housing Census of Malaysia 1980, population
report for Local Authority Areas. Department of Statistics, Kuala Lumpur.

Khoo T.H. (1988) The components of urban growth in Peninsular Malaysia, 1970-
1980. Studies on Demographic and Population Subjects, No. 4, Jabatan
Perangkaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.

Khoo T.H. (1992) Population and housing census of Malaysia 1991, preliminary
count report for urban and rural areas. Department of Statistics, Kuala
Lumpur.

Shaari bin Abdul Rahman (2001) Population and housing census of Malaysia
2000, preliminary count report for urban and rural areas. Department of
Statistics, Kuala Lumpur.

Van K.K.Y. (1989) Components of growth of metropolitan towns, Peninsular

Malaysia, 1970-1980. Quarterly Review of Malaysian Population Statistics,
No. 13, Department of Statistics, Kuala Lumpur.

54