A cross-sectional survey was undertaken in 1987 to measure the difference in caries experience in schoolchildren between a fluoridated (0.8 mg/L F-) and a non-fluoridated region (0.1-0.4 mg/L F-). 3436 children aged 5-15 yr were examined. Children in the non-fluoridated region had a higher caries experience than those in the fluoridated region. Mean differences were 1.06 dfs (95% CI = 0.66 to 1.47, P less than 0.001) and 0.48 DFS (95% CI = 0.23 to 0.72, P less than 0.001). After adjusting for potential confounding factors (fluoride tablet consumption, socioeconomic status, number of fissure-sealed surfaces, and mobility between regions) the relative risk of not being caries-free in the non-fluoridated region compared with the fluoridated region was 1.43 (95% CI = 1.21-1.70, P less than 0.0001) for the primary dentition and 1.39 (95% CI = 1.18-1.63, P less than 0.0001) for the permanent dentition.
Ethnicity is one of several boundary phenomena (another is class) marking out groups within society. Ethnic identity may be perceived according to a variety of terms such as race, culture, religion, language or according to the place of origin of the group's members. In the colonial context the most obvious boundary was between Europeans and non-Europeans. Cast into an alien environment, Europeans acquired a self-awareness and a corporate sense, and the first part of this paper deals with this colonial experience, including the alienation of the individual, the growth of white tribalism and the emergence of a colonial ideology which was partly common to the empire as a whole and partly peculiar to Malaya. I then turn to examine European perceptions of non-Europeans (especially Malays) and the way ethnic attitudes affected colonial administration. I conclude by briefly considering the British influence upon the Malay's image of themselves.
“Fifty years ago, the name of Chin Peng was feared almost as much as Osama bin Laden is today”. So wrote the Hong Kong-based journalist, Philip Bowring, in 2003. Fifty years ago the British empire, in the view of Field Marshal Montgomery, was locked in a struggle “between the East and West, between Communism and Democracy, between evil and Christianity”. It was a time when Chin Peng was Britain's enemy number one in Southeast Asia. A measure of his importance is the size of the reward offered in May 1952 for his capture: M$250,000 was equivalent to first prize in the Social Welfare Lottery and a huge sum compared with the wage rates of Malayan workers. Chin Peng is Malaya's Ho Chi Minh, but a Ho Chih Minh manqué. Like Ho Chi Minh, Chin Peng was a communist who, having played a key part in local resistance to the Japanese occupation, led the struggle against the post-war restoration of European colonialism. Yet, whereas Ho Chi Minh established the independent Democratic Republic of Vietnam, Chin Peng was thwarted in his attempt to create a socialist state in Malaya. Consequently, while the one became a national hero, the other has been cast out from the land of his birth and until recently has been without a voice in its history. The publication of his memoirs in 2003, however, enables us to reappraise Chin Peng's part in the achievement of Malayan independence.
Like so many features of the British Empire, policy for colonial higher education was transformed during the Second World War. In 1945 the Asquith Commission established principles for its development, and in 1948 the Carr–Saunders report recommended the immediate establishment of a university in Malaya to prepare for self-government. This institution grew at a rate that surpassed expectations, but the aspirations of its founders were challenged by lack of resources, the mixed reactions of the Malayan people and the politics of decolonisation. The role of the University of Malaya in engineering a united Malayan nation was hampered by lingering colonial attitudes and ultimately frustrated by differences between Singapore and the Federation. These differences culminated in the university's partition in January 1962. In the end it was the politics of nation-building which moulded the university rather than the other way round.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.