Date post: | 28-Mar-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | andrew-speedy |
View: | 3,832 times |
Download: | 5 times |
1
Rural Development in Malaysia1
Assoc Prof Dr Ibrahim Ngah,
Department of Urban and Regional Planning,
Faculty of Built of Environment,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
81310 Skudai
Johor
INTRODUCTION
Since Malaysia became independent from British rule in 1957, rural development has
always been considered important in the agenda of national development. Many
strategies and programmes were introduced to promote the well-being of rural people
ranging from development of the agriculture sector, rural industrialisation, resettlement
schemes, provision of public facilities and infrastructure to human and community
development. Rural development can be seen as a process of change carried out
deliberately for the betterment of rural people. The process of change is continuous, and
its essentially interventionist aims are to achieve certain goals or to solve problems of the
rural areas. As a process of induced change led by the state, rural development activities
covered elements such as planning, implementation, monitoring and involved multi-
disciplinary actors, such as state agencies, the private sector, NGOs and the general
public. Due to the nature of rural development activities with overriding state
interventions, rural development in Malaysia tended to be viewed as synonymous with
the state rural development strategies and programmes aimed at solving problems facing
1 Paper published in Malaysia’s Economy, Past, Present & Future, Ch. 2, ed. Ishak Yussof (2009), Kuala
Lumpur: Malaysian Strategic Research Centre.
2
rural sectors such as poverty, low productivity, low income, lack of proper and adequate
rural infrastructures and the rural-urban disparity that existed prior to independence.
During the decades after independence, much effort and many resources were spent to
improve the well-being of rural people ranging from development of infrastructure and
facilities, modernisation of rural sectors through the use of modern techniques of
production, agriculture support services, integrated area development and institutional
development. An assessment of the success and shortfall of implementation and
outcomes has been widely discussed and debated by researchers and practitioners in the
field. The discourses on rural development tended to fall within the theoretical
framework of development economics, focusing on the dichotomy between
modernisation theory and technocratic approach on one hand and reformist and political
economy on the other. The approach to rural development appeared to be problem
oriented and focused on the basic needs of the poor sections of the community. The
extent of rural development in the future is expected to look into the potential and
strength of our rich rural heritage and to venture into the future guided by rural vision.
This chapter will provide an overview of rural development activities in Malaysia since
independence; it will examine the progress achieved by looking into some social
economic development indicators of rural areas and highlight the issues and challenges
facing rural development in achieving Vision 2020. The last part presents some
suggestions about possible future directions and new dimensions of rural development.
3
INITIAL CONDITION AFTER INDEPENDENCE
Towards the end of British colonialism, the Malaysian economy (Malaya, Sabah and
Sarawak) consisted of a modern sector, largely owned and controlled by foreign and
Chinese capitals on one hand, and on the other, traditional sectors engaged by small scale
farmers and other indigenous people. The modern sector was characterised by high
capital investment, market-oriented, high technology and high productivity, which
included plantation, production of timber, mining and a mercantile economy. People who
were engaged in the modern sector such as the owners and salaried workers were better
off, not only due to the relatively higher income received but also were more secure in
terms of cash flow and access to a better standard of living and quality of life. The
traditional sector, such as fishing, cultivation of rice, coconut and other food crops were
characterised by low productivity, low technology, and small-scale. This traditional
economy of poverty and chronic deprivation, as termed by Silcock (1963), was generally
neglected during British rule. The policy of the colonial authorities was rather to
encourage peasants to continue cultivating rice and to discourage them from leaving their
land or from changing to other crops because of concerns for food security and the
balance of payments. Since rice cultivation was unprofitable, the Malay peasants who
continued living on rice were kept poor.
4
By 1957, out of the 6.5 million population in Peninsular Malaysia, 73.4 per cent lived in
rural areas, of which 60.2 per cent were Malays, 28 per cent Chinese and 10.5 percent
Indians. It was the Malay who largely engaged in traditional subsistence agriculture such
as cultivation of rice and other food crops and fishing. The Orang Asli, who were fewer
in number, mainly lived in the forest, with their livelihood depending on hunting,
gathering of jungle products and shifting cultivation. In the plantation sector, foreign
capital largely employed Indian workers who stayed in quarters built on the estates. There
was also a substantial number of Chinese who lived in rural areas, particularly those who
were forced to move into the jungle fringes during the economic recession in the1930s to
earn their living by engaging in farming (Mohd Syukri, 1992). Since their methods of
farming were more productive and had better access to the market, their standard of
living was higher than that of the Malay rice grower and fisherman. During the
Emergency period between1948-1960, many Chinese who lived scattered along the
jungle fringes were resettled in “New Villages”. As noted by Voon and Khoo (1986),
about 550,000 persons were resettled in 445 villages out of which 86 per cent were
Chinese.
In Sarawak, just before joining Malaysia in 1963, the population was about 800,000 with
more than 80 per cent living in rural areas. The rural population was sparse and scattered
along coastal areas and rivers, where communication was possible. Huge areas of land
was covered with jungle, inaccessible by land transportation, and many villages in remote
areas were not easily reached and lacked in basic infrastructure and facilities. The
livelihood of rural people including the Iban, Bidayuh, Malays and Melanau was often
5
not sufficiently remunerative, and it included swamp and wet rice farming, sago
cultivation, coconut growing and fishing. Farming was commonly a small-scale, low-
yielding and low value system with many farmers involved in some subsistence
production and shifting cultivation of rice (King, 1992). The Orang Ulu (such as Punan,
Penan, Kayan, Kelabit, Kenyah) could be found in the interior, such as upstream Baram
River, Balui River and some other main rivers in Sarawak. They generally practised
shifting cultivation especially hill rice and gathering of forest products. Apart from low
income and low productivity, rural development in Sarawak faced another challenge
related to land regulation and administration. Large portions of rural Sarawak are under
“Native Customary Land”, held by the indigenous population under various forms of
customary tenure without registered title. The land becomes an obstacle to development
because it cannot be transferred or used as collateral.
The development of a market economy in Sabah expanded rapidly when the British
Chartered Company gained control of Sabah to exploit resources and conduct trading
activities. Logging activities and rubber plantations were the main modern economic
activities in rural Sabah. Unlike in Peninsular Malaysia, the Company brought in Chinese
and Javanese to work in the rubber plantations and timber industries. Many of the
Chinese later settled down in the rural areas while the Javanese returned to their origins
(Lee Yong Leng, 1982). The majority of the indigenous population lived on subsistence
farming, fishing and shifting cultivation.
6
In 1961 the population of Sabah was about 455,000 consisting of 67.5 per cent
Bumiputera, 23 per cent Chinese and 9.5 per cent others. Among the Bumiputera the
majority were Dusun, followed by Bajau, Murut and others. About 81 per cent of the total
population lived and worked in rural areas. The 1977 agriculture census revealed that
58.5 percent of total rural households operated agricultural land and 45.4 per cent of
agricultural households operated land less than 5 acres. The greatest incidence of poverty
was in the rural traditional sector where 65.7 percent were earning below the poverty
income level. Traditional small-scale farmers were further beset with inherent and
complex socio-economic limitations including uneconomic size holdings, low return
crops, traditional methods of production, inadequate access to assistance and support
services and the lack of credit and marketing facilities. The interplay of these constraints
resulted in low productivity and low income and thus the high incidence of poverty
among small-scale farmers. The incidence of poverty is similarly felt among shifting
cultivators, the landless and subsistence fisherman.
Generally, at the initial stage after independence, there appeared quite common economic
problems faced by rural Malaysia, such as the persistence of poverty, lack of access to
basic infrastructure, poor health and education. But behind the scenes, there existed
variations of rural conditions such as socio-cultural, political, ecological resources,
respective physical settings. The efforts made to address rural problems often overlooked
the diversity of the rural context, and thus common prescriptions had been applied to
solve the problems.
7
OVERVIEW OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
A lot of research and publications exist on rural development in Malaysia covering a
diverse range of scope and perspective, from the general overview of strategies to
comprehensive evaluation of the impact of the programmes (see Zulkurnain 1989;
Chamhuri and Nik Hashim, 1988; King and Nazaruddin (eds) 1992; Mohd Shukri, 1992).
However, very few made an attempt to combine the analysis to cover the whole of
Malaysia. They looked into the analysis of Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah or Sarawak
separately. In this article it is thus not quite possible to review rural development in
Malaysia as one entity but instead we must examine the progress in parallel by regions i.e.
Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak. An overview of rural development strategies
will be discussed according to the development context by period as outlined in Figure
10.1. The division of the periods is based on major variations in the development
approaches or philosophy adopted by the government.
8
1960 1970 1980 2000 1990 2010 2020
Malaysia Independence
Infrastructure
for resource
exploitation
Vision 2020
New
Development
Policy
(OPP2) New Economic Policy
(OPP1)
National
Vision
Policy
(OPP3) Economic
Growth
(Laissez-
faire
approach)
Colonial
policy of
resource
exploitation
Eradication of poverty &
restructuring of society
Growth
with equity
Building a
resilient
and
competitive
nation
OPP4 ?
Context
Rural
Developmen
t Strategies
& Programs
New
Village
Schemes
Basic
infrastructure &
social facilities
Modernisation &
Diversification of
Crops
New land schemes
Community
Development
Red Book
New land development
schemes
Regional development
Integrated in-situ
development
Orang Asli Regrouping
Schemes
New Approach
to Village &
Rural
Development
Rural Growth
Centre
New
Philosophy &
Strategy of
Rural
Development
(A developed,
attractive and
profitable
rural)
Gerakan Desa
Wawasan
Eradicate
hardcore
poverty
Gerakan
Daya
Wawasan
Improve
quality of life
Expand
infrastructure
& amenities
to remote
areas
Zero hardcore
poverty
1st MP 1st 5YP 2nd 5YP 2nd MP 3rd MP 4th MP 6th MP 5th MP 7th MP 8th MP 9th MP
9
Rural Development from Independence to 1970
The late Tun Abdul Razak as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Rural Development
was an important figure in the history of rural development. He took special interest in
the development of rural areas by bringing impoverished Malays and other Bumiputera
into the country’s economic mainstream. The urgency of addressing the development of
rural areas related to the initial condition of under-development of the traditional sectors
which were essentially neglected during colonial rule. In addition, the agenda for the
development of the Malays who largely lived in rural areas was interpreted as part of the
bargaining and compromise agreed upon between Malays and non-Malays prior to
independence, i.e. the protection of ‘special rights of the Malays’. However, such
privileges when pursued must not affect the interest of non-Malays (Mohd Syukri, 1992).
Within the framework of a laissez-faire economy, rural development started with
programmes for the provision of basic infrastructure and facilities and some initial
programmes for addressing poverty and land hunger. Given various constraints and
shortages, a planning mechanism called the ‘Red Book’ was introduced to plan,
coordinate development implementation and receive information from the grassroots. The
Red Book was basically a district rural development plan manual, containing instructions
on how to prepare a rural district plan including the setting and working of the District
Rural Development Committee, procedures of plan preparation, sectoral policy to be
considered in the preparation of development programmes and projects, costing and
10
responsibility for implementing the plan. The methodology of the Red Book was very
effective, the approach brought together top-down and bottom-up planning. In line with
this new approach of rural development, a structure of district development machinery
was set up such as the Village Development and Security Committee (or JKKK) and the
District Rural Development Committee.
The three main focuses of rural development during the Tun Razak Period (1960s) were:
• Infrastructure development such as building roads, schools, bridges, clinics,
irrigation schemes, mosques, community halls, water supply and electricity;
• The opening up of new land schemes to resettle landless peasants;
• Modernisation of agriculture and diversification of agricultural crops.
A few agencies related to rural development were established during this period in
addition to the Rural and Industrial Development Authority (RIDA) and the Federal Land
Development Authority (FELDA), established a few years prior to independence. These
include the Federal Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation Authority (FELCRA);
Federal Agricultural Marketing Authority (FAMA), Agricultural Bank Malaysia (BPM),
Malaysia Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI), Council of Trust
for Indigenous People (MARA- replacing RIDA). However, the government commitment
was limited in scope and scale not only because of lack of experience and resources but
more importantly the policy at that time tended to follow a relatively laissez-faire
economic philosophy.
11
In Sabah and Sarawak not much was done for the development of rural traditional
sectors prior to 1970s. A few land resettlement schemes developed in Sarawak started in
1964 such as Rubber Planting Scheme B in Skrang and Melugu (King and Jayum, 1992).
Lee (1982) noted a few resettlement schemes for Orang Dusun in Kerikot and Keningau
initiated by the colonial authorities to attract them to stay in the low-lands and to
transform them into the practice of permanent farming. Similarly undertaken were several
settlement schemes for the Chinese population in the district of Keningau, Tenom and
Papar. After independence, Sabah Department of Agriculture managed to develop 12
land development schemes covering about 18,000 hectares, which was later handed over
to Sabah Land Development Board (SDLB).
The New Economic Policy Period (1970 - 1990)
The 1970 -1990 period marked an era of government intervention and an accelerated
effort in the development of rural areas as a response to the problem of poverty and
inequality. The NEP was incorporated in the Second Malaysia Plan as presented to
Parliament on 11 July 1971. The plan had a two-pronged objective of the eradication of
poverty, irrespective of race, and the restructuring of society so that the association of
different ethnic groups with specific economic roles would be eliminated within a
planning period of 20 years (1971-1990). In rural areas, new land development, regional
development and in-situ development programmes became important instruments for
restructuring and reducing rural poverty and regional imbalance.
12
New Land Development and Resettlement
In Peninsular Malaysia, the development of new land for agriculture in the post-1970
period was largely undertaken by government agencies. The Federal Land development
Authority (FELDA) alone successfully opened more than 600,000 hectares of land for
agriculture between 1970 and 1990. Other state agencies such as the Regional
Development Authorities (RDAs), the State Economic Development Corporations
(SEDCs), the Federal Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation Authority (FELCRA) and
the Rubber Industry Smallholders Development Authority (RISDA) also participated in
new land development. The role of the private sector was marginal, since under the NEP
the state agencies were given priority to develop new land in order to ensure Bumiputera
participation, and the high price of palm oil in the 1970s and early 1980s ensured good
returns on state investment.
As the price of palm oil and other agricultural commodities fell to low levels in the mid-
1980s and remained so for a few years, the development of new land for agriculture has
been largely privatised. FELDA, which has been successful in developing land schemes
for Malay small holders, was not allocated any more land in the Sixth Malaysia Plan and
subsequent period except in Sabah. This is not only because land suitable for agriculture
has become scarce, but also due to the cost of resettling families in FELDA schemes has
become expensive and continued to rise. According to the Sixth Malaysia Plan, the
average cost of resettling a family under FELDA schemes had increased from RM49,700
in 1986 to RM55,000 in 1990 compared to RM26,500 in 1976 (Government of Malaysia,
13
1991:117). Given the present level of commodity prices and the present system of settler
loan repayment, new FELDA schemes will not provide favourable net income for the
settlers. More importantly, with the current pace of rapid industrialisation in Malaysia
demanding cheap labour, the development of FELDA schemes will increase competition
for labour. The large plantations were also hit badly by a shortage of labour since they
were unable to offer higher wages than the industrial sector.
In Sabah, a few agencies were involved in the development of a large scale land
settlements including SLDB (established in 1969), Sabah Forestry Development
Authority (SAFODA), the Sabah Rubber Fund Board (SRFB), the State Ministry of
Culture, Youth and Sport (MCYS) and FELDA (Yap et al, 1988). By the end of 1980s,
about 94,000 hectares of land had been developed and mainly planted with oil palm, to
benefit about 7,000 settlers.
In Sarawak the development of new land was not that significant compared to the in-situ
kind, probably because of problems related to land regulations. Resettlement schemes
were developed mainly for security reasons (such as Rajang Security Command Schemes
(RASCOM) to resettle Iban communities in the Kanowit and Sibu areas in an attempt to
combat communist terrorists) and the construction of dams such as Wong Irup dam near
Lubok Antu and lately (in 1999) the resettlement scheme at Sungai Asap for Orang Ulu
( Kenyah, Kayan, Ukit, Kajang, and Punan) affected by the construction of Bakun Dam.
The resettlement schemes such as at Sungai Asap may have promised a better future for
the young generation but it posed adaptation problems for old people, whose skills and
14
livelihood were based on hunting and gathering of jungle products and shifting
cultivation, which the new area cannot provide.
Sarawak has plenty of land bank to be developed in the future. The state has already
targeted to turn about one million hectares of land into oil palm plantation by 2010,
largely through private-public sector initiatives. The Lembaga Pembangunan dan
Lindungan Tanah (PELITA) was established to expedite the development of rural land
under “Native Customary Right”. Through joint-venture arrangement with private sector,
PELITA had already managed to arrange about 247,000 hectares for development, out of
which about 27,000 hectares had been planted (Abdullah, 2005). However the success of
the schemes depended on the economic return for the developers and the participation of
the natives in the job created. In oil palm plantation, productivity very much depends on
the management and working discipline of the workforce, which might not be the culture
of the natives who are used to living by hunting, gathering of jungle products and shifting
cultivation with a lot of time flexibility.
Orang Asli Regrouping Schemes
In Peninsular Malaysia the Orang Asli consist of three main ethnic groups: the Senoi, the
Proto-Malay and Negrito, with a total population of about 120,000 in year 2000. The
majority were Senoi (living in Perak, Pahang, Kelantan and Selangor) and the Proto-
Malay (largely found in Pahang, Johor, Terengganu and Negeri Sembilan). Efforts to
develop Orang Asli communities can be traced back to 1953 and the establishment of the
15
Department of Orang Asli Affairs (JHEOA). The development of Orang Asli schemes
began in 1977, which involved regrouping of the Orang Asli into a centralised village
within or close to their traditional homeland. The schemes include provision of basic
facilities such as a primary school, health clinic, housing and some form of income
generating activities such as rubber and palm oil cultivation (Nicolas, 2000). In some
schemes the cultivation of crops were carried out together with FELCRA who managed
the plantation on a cooperative system. There were 18 regrouping schemes developed for
the whole of Peninsular Malaysia involving about 10,000 Orang Asli.
JHEOA also pursued other programmes ranging from the development of
entrepreneurship to provision of facilities and human development. There has been a lot
of improvement in the living conditions of Orang Asli. However, the overall level
standard of living and achievement are far behind other communities. Poverty, low
education achievement with a high drop out-rate, and persistence of infectious and
parasitic diseases (malaria, tuberculosis, cholera, measles, whooping cough and scabies)
are some of the indicators of under development.
Among Orang Asli communities, there exists a lot of variation in living conditions. Those
near urban centre tend to be more equipped with facilities and exposed to modern living.
In remote locations where accessibility posed a problem, livelihoods and life remain
traditional, living by subsistence farming, hunting and gathering of jungle products. In
one extreme case the Jahai community in Royal Belum Forest Reserve (Perak), chose to
16
live in the traditional way and refuse to stay in the regrouping scheme provided, and do
not send their children to school.
The Regional Development Authorities
On broader scale and in a comprehensive strategy of development in rural regions,
several statutory regional development authorities were established to implement the
development strategy in resource frontier areas, mainly virgin forest situated in the less-
developed parts of Peninsular Malaysia such as in the southeast of Pahang, southeast of
Johor, the south of Kelantan and the middle parts of Terengganu. Most RDAs,
particularly those related to the development of new towns, were established in the 1970s
not long after the NEP was launched.
Apart from the main goals of poverty eradication and the restructuring of society, the
RDAs were given the following mandates: to redress economic and structural imbalances
between regions; to utilise resource strengths/endowments of less developed states
towards national economic development; to strengthen agricultural and industrial
development in lagging regions, to redirect new development and growth to less
developed regions and finally, to urbanise rural agricultural regions by development of
towns in the rural areas (Quazi, 1987:4).
Three decades after RDAs were established, more than 40 new towns had been developed.
Twenty-three new towns were in the Pahang Tenggara Development Authority (DARA)
17
region, twelve in the Johor Tenggara Development Authority (KEJORA) region, five in
the Terengganu Tengah Regional Development Authority (KETENGAH) region and one
each in the Jengka Regional Development Authority (JENGKA) and the South Kelantan
Development Authority (KESEDAR) region. These towns were mainly developed by the
RDAs and FELDA. Two RDAs, the Penang Regional Development Authority (PERDA)
and the Kedah Regional Development Authority (KEDA) are not involve in new
townships development and their main programs are in-situ rural development projects
such as improvement of the physical conditions of existing settlements and rural
industrialisation.
Among the reasons for the failure in the development of urban-based economic activities
are competition with existing towns, locational disadvantages, lack of infrastructure and
facilities, failure of the growth centre concept, and the nature of leakages of capital or
trickle up mechanism which favour large urban centres and large capitalists (Ibrahim,
1993; Norizan, 1992, Ghani, 1991; Wong, 1989; Muda, 1989)
Wong (1989), who evaluated the resource frontier strategy of DARA and KESEDAR,
revealed that the economy of the frontier regions, which depended on rubber and palm oil
production, created relatively little value added within the regions. These commodities
are strongly tied to the world market and served the interest of national metropolitan
centres. The development of DARA and KESEDAR has not boosted Malay urbanisation
nor reduced regional inequality. He also observed that most FELDA settlers have
improved their standard of living since moving. However, the benefit has been restricted
to first generation settlers since few non-agricultural jobs had been created in the regions.
18
An overview of the performance of new townships in several frontier regions generally
indicates the failure of the new towns to generate economic growth. The development of
new towns has not boosted Malay urbanisation nor reduced regional disparity to any
significant extent. The development of agriculture and resource-based activities in the
new towns has not created the ‘propulsive force’ to boost the economic base of the towns.
These activities have not generated a “trickle-down” effect because they did not purchase
inputs from local small businesses and their products were not for domestic use but
primarily for export. The new towns are also locationally disadvantaged and lack the
necessary infrastructure to attract industrial activities.
In 1992, the government undertook a study reviewing the role and position of RDAs. The
existence of RDAs has to a certain extent succeeded in reducing development disparity
between regions such as in agriculture development, communication networks and social
services. On the other hand, less successful is the development of services, private
investments and new growth centres.
With the changing development paradigm in the 1990s, and emphasis on private sector
led growth, was a government decision to dissolve RDAs by stages. In April 1999, the
Cabinet approved privatisation of DARA to Teras Dara Konsortium and Jengka Regional
Development Authority to Warisan Jengka Holdings Sdn Bhd. The other RDAs still
continue their operation, having less scope for new land development than the
development of existing settlements and community.
19
In-situ Rural development
Rural development activities in existing rural areas carried out by agencies created in
1960s to provide various assistance to traditional sectors were not comprehensive enough
and lacked coordination in implementation. Each agency, including Federal Land
Consolidation and Rehabilitation Authority (FELCRA), Agricultural Bank of Malaysia
(BPM), Farmers Organisation Authority and Department of Agriculture Development,
served the rural and agricultural sector in their own capacity. Although coordination of
the implementation was carried out at district level by the District Development
Committee, the impact was not substantial due to its small scale and other administrative
problems such as lack of manpower, qualified staff and focus of development. The
funding and manpower of each agency had to be dispersed to all state and district branch
offices and it was quite impossible to give focus to certain priorities and areas under such
a set-up.
Thus a more integrated approach to the rural development programme was introduced to
give focus to a comprehensive programme for combating poverty in traditional village
regions where poverty was concentrated. Among large-scale Integrated Agricultural
Development Projects (IADP) under the Ministry of Agriculture were Kemubu
Agricultural Development Authority (KADA), Muda Agricultural Development
Authority (MADA), Kemubu and Besut Irrigation Schemes, North West Selangor and
the West Johor Schemes implemented largely in the 1970, . The IADP is an integrated
package programme providing capital intensive measures such as providing irrigation,
20
farm machinery and high yielding crop varieties and the provision of infrastructure and
services. The objectives were to increase agricultural productivity and farmers’ income,
modernising agriculture, improving extension services, uplifting the standard of living of
the rural population and encouraging farmers to work in groups or organisations.
There were some positive outcomes of the IADP programmes such as an increase in padi
production and farmers’ income, employment opportunities both on and off-farm. Also
recorded was the reduction of poverty levels in IADP areas (Maimunah and Bahaman,
1992). Although the projects were successful to some extent in improving rural
productivity, they tended to favour big land-owner or rich farmers. A large number of
peasants who had no land or owned small plots benefited little from the schemes and still
remained in poverty. Farmer participation also tended to be passive, confined to
acceptance of new technology and receipt of government subsidies (Chamhuri and Nik
Hashim, 1988; Mohd Shukri, 1992). Courtenay (1988) also noted the reduction of padi
cultivated area due to farmer withdrawal from padi growing and a phenomenon of
massive migration away from the padi growing districts, reflecting the shortfall of IADP.
In Sabah, the implementation of in-situ development programmes was carried out by
several agencies such as the Department of Agriculture, the Rural Development
Corporation (KPD), the Sabah Rubber Fund Board (SRFB), the Department of Veterinary
Services and Animal Industry (DOVSAI), the Department of Fisheries (DOF) and
Drainage and Irrigation (DID). The KPD as a leading agency in rural development
initiated many programmes ranging from crop diversification, aquaculture, livestock
21
development, socio-economic programmes, mini irrigation projects, commercial farming,
processing and marketing of agricultural and related products. Overall performance was
encouraging in terms of production and land area under crops, livestock and fisheries
development, but as pointed out by Zulkifli (1992), human development aspects were not
given sufficient attention, such as skills on operation and management. This resulted in
the failure of some projects related to non-traditional crops. In rural areas, socio-cultural
factors such as traditional beliefs and customs, institutions, values and needs had to be
addressed not only to minimise conflict in development objectives but also to ensure that
the programs introduced were received and widely participated in by the communities.
In-situ development in Sarawak involved measures for agricultural improvement carried
out by the Department of Agriculture, and Drainage and Irrigation Department and
Sarawak Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation Authority (SALCRA). The Department
of Agriculture was responsible for several schemes for small farmers including Rubber
Planting Schemes, Coconut Planting Schemes, the Pepper Subsidy Scheme, Agricultural
Diversification Scheme, Assistance to Padi Planters Schemes, Livestock Development
Subsidy Scheme and Inland Fisheries and Aquaculture Development Programme. The
Rural Growth Centre (RGC) programme was also pursued under the Sarawak Ministry of
Rural and Land Development, consisting of an infrastructure component, economy,
service centre and human development. Implementation of the RGC was executed by
existing agencies such as the Drainage and Irrigation Department (DID), Sarawak Land
Development Board (SLDB) and Sarawak Land Custody and Development Authority
(LCDA).
22
Generally, the subsidy schemes have been instrumental in raising the standard of living of
many farmers and reduced the area used for swidden agriculture, intensifying farming
practices and usage of subsidised fertiliser, pesticides and weed killers on smaller rice
plots. They also diversified into cash crops such as pepper, cocoa, fruit and vegetable
growing and some had fish ponds (King, V.T, 1992). Similar to other in-situ development
elsewhere the programmes cannot create jobs for the new labour force. The migration of
youth after completing secondary education was prominent. Many of the young
generation migrated to towns in Sarawak, Peninsular Malaysia and even Singapore in
search of jobs.
The New Approach to Village and Rural Development (NAVRD)
NAVRD is another programme of rural development launched in October 1984, a
modern land and agrarian reform. The aim is to increase income of small farmers by
improving efficiency and productivity through economies of scale in production and
utilisation of modern methods of production and management, and improve the standard
of living of traditional village people by provision of infrastructure and facilities. The
new move aimed to address the persistent and increasing socio-economic gap between
traditional rural dwellers and the urban and modern sector. An alarming increase in idle
alienated land, a continued productivity gap between traditional agriculture sectors and
modern estate sectors and the limited access of traditional villages to basic modern
23
services, were signs of the inability of the conventional approach to cope with the needs
of contemporary socio-economic change.
The three main components of NAVRD were:
a. A voluntary consolidation of individually owned private land into large holdings
called estates. The estates were to be owned by the participating land-owners,
who were receiving shares in ratio to the land they had contributed. The new
estates were to be managed as co-operatives by professional managers with the
objective of profit maximisation.
b. The development of agricultural and non-agricultural based industry within the
project area to provide additional employment opportunities and income, and to
accelerate further the process of rural transformation.
c. Resettlement of scattered villages to a centralised village with modern basic
facilities such as schools, clinics, piped water, electricity and recreation.
The implementation of NAVRD would utilise the existing government set-up and
machinery, without introducing new enabling legislation. The programme relied on the
reallocation of existing financial and other resources from existing government
organisations dealing with rural development.
24
On the basis of case studies of a few pioneer projects of NAVRD, Zulkurnain (2001)
highlighted some shortcomings of the programme which were:
1. The programme failed to address the landless, the tenants and very small farmers
which constituted about half of the target group. The process of land consolidation
and estatisation of farms tended to benefit the large land owners since the
distribution of profit was based on the ratio of land contributed.
2. The programme did not show clear intention to close the existing economic gap
between well-to-do and poor villagers.
3. The difficulty of finding a village which has 500 households or more to develop
as a growth centre for the provision of facilities and infrastructure.
4. The problem of getting participation from farmers.
5. The negative impact of introducing modern methods and machinery on
employment opportunities.
6. Failure to develop non-agricultural activities such as industry due to remoteness
of market, poor infrastructure and unavailability of required skills.
NAVRD also shared a common feature with other agrarian reforms which treated
peasants as passive subjects of change to be moulded and modified at the will of central
planners rather than as agents of change.
25
The New Development Policy (NDP) Period (1991-2000)
This period was covered under The Second Outline Perspective Plan (OPP2) and the 6th
and 7th
Malaysia Plan. The NDP with its philosophy of growth with equity emphasised
the eradication of hard core poverty, meaningful participation of Bumiputera in the
modern sector of the economy, role of private sector in restructuring objectives and
human resource development.
The in-situ land development strategy continued to be given emphasis in rural
development during the Sixth and Seventh Plan Period, including replanting programmes,
land consolidation and rehabilitation programmes and Integrated Agricultural
Development Projects (IADP). Due to limited availability of suitable land in Peninsular
Malaysia, the opening up of new land was concentrated in Sabah and Sarawak. The
private sector played a more prominent role in the development of new land for
agriculture including joint ventures with state agencies. FELDA managed to develop
about 15,000 hectares of new land in Sabah under plantation schemes but its main tasks
were to manage existing schemes such as replanting, entrepreneurship and skill training,
settler development and provision of social amenities.
Other programmes for the improvement of the quality of life in interior rural areas were
also emphasised, such as provision of roads, bridges, piped water, electricity, medical and
education facilities, including the establishment of Rural Growth Centres to facilitate the
expansion of economic activities in selected areas.
26
In line with the changes in overall strategy for national development and a new Vision
2020 of Malaysia to become a fully developed country by 2020, a new philosophy for
rural development was also formulated. The new paradigm to rural development called
“New Philosophy and Strategy of Rural Development” (NPSRD) shifted the focus of
development from infrastructure (or eco-centric) to human as the focus of development
(or homo-centric). The NPSRD launched in 1994 becomes the framework for the second
transformation of the rural areas with the goal of transforming rural Malaysia into a
developed, attractive and profitable place for living. This phase of rural development also
marked the beginning of a vision - driven approach to rural development, although much
effort still needs to be poured into problems of poverty, provision of basic infrastructure
and social amenities, particularly in interior rural areas. The human focus emphasises
developing human capacity building which would ensure their initiative and participation
in rural development. The main strategies to achieve the goal of NPSRD include
development of human resources, strengthening family values, development of a society
which is self-reliant, provision of quality infrastructure, development of sustainable rural
economy, effective delivery system and the establishment of a more responsive
institution for rural development (Government of Malaysia, 1996:167).
Under NPSRD a new programme called “Gerakan Desa Wawasan” (Visionary Village
Movement) was launched in 1996, emphasising the empowerment of rural people in
planning and implementing development projects in their own village. During the
Seventh Plan Period, 3000 villages had participated in the programme under the
27
supervision of various agencies of the Ministry of Rural and Regional Development, such
as KEMAS, FELCRA, RDAs and RISDA (Table 10.1). For capability building of village
people an Institute for Rural Advancement was established in 1996 and has trained more
than 9000 grass root leaders such as JKKK for preparation of village master plans, project
planning and management, organisation and leadership. However, the outcome of the
programme has not yet been evaluated, particularly how the knowledge and skills learned
are being applied in the development of villages.
28
Table 10.1 Distribution of Villages under Gerakan Desa Wawasan
by States, 1996-2000
States
Number of GDW Village by State and Coordinating
Agencies
Total KEMAS RISDA FELCRA LKW
Johor 221 13 12 28 274
Kedah 173 9 4 48 234
Kelantan 208 9 3 47 267
Melaka 138 10 3 151
N. Sembilan 183 14 3 200
Pahang 249 14 8 61 332
P. Pinang 119 1 30 150
Perak 251 10 8 269
Perlis 90 6 1 97
Selangor 200 10 210
Terengganu 195 13 7 29 244
Sabah 220 220
Sarawak 334 3 337
W. Persekutuan 18 18
Total 2,599 108 53 486 3,003
Sumber: Bahagian Permodenan Desa, Kementerian Pembangunan Luar Bandar.
29
National Vision Policy Period (2001-2010)
The third Outline Perspective Plan or the National Vision Policy set up a framework for
development covering the 2001-2010 period in which the Eighth and Ninth Malaysia
Plan will be executed. The plan, with national unity as its overriding goal, outlined
general strategies to move foreword in a balanced and sustainable manner in which
economic growth will be promoted alongside efforts to eradicate poverty, restructuring of
society, narrowing the social, economic and regional imbalances, inculcating positive
social and spiritual values as well as concern for the environment. It focuses on building
a resilient and competitive nation.
The National Agriculture Policy III (NAP 3) 1998-2010 launched in 1998 provided a
framework for agricultural development during this period. It contained an overriding
goal of income maximisation through optimal utilisation of the sector’s resources with
the objectives of enhancing food security; increasing productivity and competitiveness;
strengthening linkages with other sectors particularly the agro-based industry; exploring
and developing new sources of growth; conservation and utilisation of natural resources
on a sustainable basis. With new emphasis and priority given to the development of
agriculture sector and good prices of main commodities, the progress was quite
encouraging. New ideas and techniques were also introduced such as Good Agriculture
Practice, marketing services such as FAMAXchange, Agribazaa, and Malaysia Best; new
production zone (high tech) for fruits, vegetable, aquaculture and animal husbandry and
organic farming.
30
During this period, rural development focused on creating a conducive environment to
attract investment and maintain tranquility of countryside living. The strategies included
the provision of the full range of basic and quality infrastructure and social services,
expanding infrastructure and facilities to remote rural areas and estates, expanding
coverage of water and electricity in Sabah and Sarawak and improvement of development
programmes of RDAs. Rural development programmes among others focused on
providing good housing, encouraging rural tourism, increasing training and opportunities
for raising incomes for youth and settlers in rural areas, development of small scale
industries such as craft and resource based, integrated programmes of human and
physical development for the Orang Asli.
The programme for human development under Gerakan Daya Wawasan was changed to
Gerakan Daya Wawasan (Visionary Capability Movement) to give more focus to the
development of three types of human capabilities i.e. human capital, financial capital and
marketing capability. The Visionary Capability Movement is a movement to inculcate
awareness, changes in mind and attitudes and empowering rural people including their
minds and skills, utilising efforts, capabilities and participation in planning and
implementing village programmes towards achieving a developed, attractive and
profitable village. The success of the programme very much related to the willingness of
village people not only to participate in training and awareness programmes, but more
important to be actively involved in creative activities of planning, implementation and
team working. In addition these activities required sacrifice of time and sometimes
31
resources. Without having any immediate economic returns it was most unlikely for the
village people, who are occupied with their own jobs, to participate.
32
PROGRESS AND ACHIEVEMENT
To examine the achievement in the process of rural transformation requires a set of time
series data on certain development indicators such as social, economic and physical. But
not much such data is available because most statistics on the subject do not have any
break down by rural area. In this article only a few indicators will be examined related to
income and poverty, infrastructure provision and rural population growth.
Income and Level of Poverty
Income and the level of poverty can provide a good measure of economic progress. The
increase in household income together with a reduction in poverty reflects an improved
standard of living and quality of life. On the other hand, low average household income
with high incidence of poverty indicates the failure of development to spread benefit to
wider sections of society. The initial state after independence reflected this failure and it
is not surprising since the colonial authorities were more concerned with maximising
exploitation of resources. Table 10.2 shows improvement in average monthly incomes of
rural and urban households. Income differential between urban and rural areas reduced
during the 1970 to 1990 period, but increased again after 1990, indicating a slower pace
of productivity improvement in the rural sector compared to the urban sector. The level of
poverty in rural areas was reduced from 45 per cent in 1976 to 21.8 per cent in 1990 and
11.9 per cent in 2004. The incidence of hard-core poverty was also reduced from 5.2
33
percent in 1990 to 2.9 percent in 2004 (Table 10.3). Rural development efforts which
gave due emphasis to the eradication of poverty appeared to be effective. However, there
are variations in the achievement. Rural poverty tended to be higher in less developed
states such as Sabah, Sarawak, Kelantan, Terengganu and Kedah (Government of
Malaysia, 1991a: pp. 52). The incidence of poverty also varies according to
occupations/economic activities. A higher rate of poverty occurred among padi farmers,
rubber and coconut small holders and fishermen.
Table 10.2 Average Gross Monthly Household Income by Urban and Rural
Areas (RM) 1970-2002
1970 1979 1990 1999 2002
Urban 428 587 1,606 3,103 3,652
Rural 200 331 957 1,718 1,729
Malaysia 264 417 1,169 2,472 3,011
Ratio urban/rural 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.8 2.1
Source: Min. of Rural and Regional Development
Provision of Infrastructure
Table 10.4 and 10.5 shows a quite high achievement of provision of water supply and
electricity in rural areas. The percentage of households with piped water had increased
from 42 per cent in 1980 to more than 90 percent in 2005. Only Sabah and Kelantan
show low levels of achievement with only about 60 percent of rural households having
34
piped water in 2005. Electricity supply was widely covered in Peninsular Malaysia in
which all states recorded more than 90 per cent of households with electricity in 2000.
Lower coverage of slightly less than 70 per cent was recorded in Sabah and Sarawak.
High development costs due to geographical factors and sparse population have hindered
the rapid expansion of rural electrification in Sabah and Sarawak. However, the overall
achievements in the provision of piped water and electricity were encouraging.
35
Table 10.3 : Malaysia Incidence of
Rural and Urban Poverty 1976-2004
1976* 1990** 1999***
Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total
Overall Poverty
Incidence of poverty 37.1
45.7
15.4
17.1
21.8
7.5
8.5
14.8
3.3
Number of households
879,300
784,900
94,400
619,400
530,300
89,100
409,000
323,200
86,100 311,300
Hard-Core Poverty
Incidence of hard-core
poverty
4.0
5.2
1.4
1.9
3.6
0.5
Number of households
143,100
126,800
16,300
91,700
79,800
11,900 67,300
Source:
*Fourth Malaysia Plan, Table 3-4,
pp.44
**Mid-Term Review of the Sixth Malaysia Plan, Table3-
1, pp. 58
***Ninth Malaysia Plan,Table 16-1, pp. 350
Note
Poverty is measured on the basis of a poverty line income (PLI) which take into account the minimum requirement for food,
clothing and shelter, and other regular expenditures that are necessary to maintain a household in a decent standard of living.
For estimating the incidence of hardcore poverty, half of the PLI is used.
PLI was revised in the Ninth Malaysia Plan to include two main components i.e. food and non-food PLI.
Hardcore poverty is based on income level below the PLI for food component, which is slightly higher than half of the total PLI.
36
Table 10.4: Malaysia: Percentage of Households with Piped Water Supply by Urban and
Rural Areas According to State, 1980-2005
Urban Rural
Negeri 1980* 1985* 1990** 1995** 2000*** 2005*** 1980* 1985* 1990** 1995**
Johor 87.0 91.6 96.0 98.0 100.0 100.0 28.0 61.3 67.0
Kedah 90.0 95.0 98.0 99.0 100.0 100.0 52.4 57.7 69.0
Kelantan 58.0 65.0 70.0 85.0 63.0 80.0 17.0 30.0 40.0
Melaka 98.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 70.0 81.7 98.0
Negeri Sembilan 86.8 89.3 96.0 98.0 100.0 100.0 66.0 75.0 89.0
Pahang 92.0 95.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 99.0 47.0 65.0 70.0
Perak 96.0 98.0 99.0 99.0 100.0 100.0 55.0 75.0 77.0
Perlis 90.0 93.0 97.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 45.0 50.0 75.0
Pulau Pinang 97.0 98.0 99.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 78.0 85.0 96.0
Sabah 99.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 89.0 90.0 18.0 38.0 52.0
Sarawak 87.0 95.0 98.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 20.0 33.0 47.0
Selangor1 90.0 94.5 98.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 65.0 73.0 85.0
Terengganu 75.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 84.0 100.0 25.0 40.0 54.0
Malaysia 89.0 93.1 96.0 98.0 97.0 98.0 42.9 57.6 67.0
Source
*Fifth Malaysia Plan, Table 18-2 & 18-3, pp. 472
** Seventh Malaysia Plan, Table 11-7, pp. 361
*** Ninth Malaysia Plan, Table 18-6, pp. 409
Note
# included under Selangor
1 Including W.P. Kuala Lumpur
37
Table 10.5: Malaysia: Percentage of Households with Electricity Supply by
Urban and Rural Areas According to States 1992 & 2000
Urban (%) Rural (%)
Negeri 1992 2000 1992 2000
Johor 98.9 100.0 96.4 98.2
Kedah 99.3 100.0 93.0 98.6
Kelantan 98.1 71.0 93.6 97.5
Melaka 99.7 100.0 98.1 99.3
Negeri Sembilan 98.9 100.0 95.2 98.6
Pahang 98.9 98.0 91.0 94.0
Perak 97.4 100.0 92.2 96.1
Perlis 97.9 100.0 95.0 99.2
Pulau Pinang 99.4 100.0 96.0 99.2
Sabah 99.4 88.0 65.3 67.1
Sarawak 89.3 100.0 76.5 66.9
Selangor 96.8 100.0 96.6 97.9
Terengganu 99.0 97.0 94.4 98.2
W.P Kuala Lumpur 98.9 99.8
Sumber: Economic Planning Unit (2005),
Rural Population Growth
Population growth indicates the ability of rural development programmes to sustain
population in rural areas. This basically relates to the number of job opportunities created
against the available manpower in the rural areas. Table 10.5 shows the overall growth of
rural population reducing from 1.45 per cent during the 1970-1980 period to 0.02 per cent
and -0.24 per cent for the 1980-1991 and 1991-2000 periods respectively.
Variation of growth rates occurred by state. During the 1970-1980 period Pahang and
Sabah managed to sustain a rural population growth of more than 3 per cent per annum.
38
In Pahang this could be related to massive land development schemes such as in DARA
and Jengka which managed to attract migrants from rural areas in other states. Sabah
continues to maintain high rural population growth during the 1980-1991 period, which
could be related to land development programmes but experienced low growth rate
during the 1991-2000 period. Terengganu also experience high rural growth rate during
the 1980-1991 period probably due to massive land development schemes in
KETENGAH and other FELDA schemes in rural areas. The slowing down of new land
development activities and continuing concentration on urban development activities in
core regions could be related to the very low or negative growth of rural population
experienced during 1991-2000.
In conclusion, rural development appears to be able to improve living conditions of rural
people, through improvement of rural economic activities, poverty eradication, provision
of infrastructure and amenities but it cannot sustain the population in the rural areas.
While new land development is capable of providing jobs and attracting migrants to new
rural areas during the early phase of development, it cannot create sufficient jobs for the
second and subsequent generations. The massive development of frontier regions such as
DARA, Jengka, KETENGAH, KEJORA and KESEDAR, which is agriculture based, has
not succeeded in creating extensive multiplier effects for the further development of other
economic activities, such as manufacturing and services. In-situ development programme
on the other hand are only able to cater for groups of people, especially those who are not
likely to migrate to urban areas. They have little success in reducing rural-urban
migration. Although the rural sector, especially plantation estates, has been facing a
39
shortage of workers, they are unable to compete for labour with economic activities in
urban areas which offer better wages. As a result there is the potential for more out-
migration from rural areas in the future, a trend which has already occurred during the
last decades.
The result would be quite negative for rural areas although some of the rural populace
might benefit from remittances sent by out-migrants (their children). The main effect will
be depopulation of the rural areas leaving behind the older population. The number of
children even born will decrease since the population of child bearing ages gradually
diminishes. Thus, the long term effect will be under utilisation of facilities and utilities
provided and inefficient running of services. The level of agricultural productivity will
drop if there is no replacement for labour shortages.
40
Table 10.6: Malaysia: Percentage of Rural Population and Average Annual Growth Rate
by State 1970-2000
Percentage Rural Growth rate (%)
Negeri 1970 1980 1991 2000 1970-80 1980-91 1991-2000
Johor 73.7 64.8 52.2 36.1 0.84 0.49 -1.70
Kedah 87.4 85.6 67.5 61.3 1.00 -0.44 1.02
Kelantan 84.9 71.9 66.5 66.5 0.61 2.18 0.97
Melaka 74.9 76.6 61.3 32.7 1.23 -0.89 -5.05
Negeri Sembilan 78.4 67.4 58.0 45.0 -0.15 0.71 -0.82
Pahang 81.0 73.9 69.6 57.9 3.28 2.25 -0.23
Perak 72.5 67.8 46.4 40.5 0.38 -2.78 -0.63
Perlis 100.0 91.1 73.4 66.2 0.85 0.21 -0.31
Pulau Pinang 49.0 52.5 25.0 20.5 -5.21 -0.65 -0.65
Sabah 83.1 79.4 66.8 51.7 3.42 4.02 0.99
Sarawak 84.5 82.0 62.5 52.1 0.12 0.25 0.25
Selangor 73.8 65.8 24.8 11.7 -4.53 -2.30 -2.30
Terengganu 73.0 57.1 55.5 50.6 0.14 3.18 0.51
W.P Kuala Lumpur - - 0.0 0.0 1.39 1.39 0.00
W.P Labuan 100.0 53.7 51.6 23.2 -1.91 6.17 -5.96
Malaysia 71.6 65.8 49.3 38.2 1.45 0.02 -0.24
Sumber: Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia(2001), Laporan Kira Permulaan Bagi Kawasan Bandar dan Luar Bandar,
Banci Penduduk dan Perumahan Malaysia 2000;
41
RURAL CHALLENGES
The challenge for rural communities is quite apparent. Major problems faced during the
earlier periods after independence have greatly reduced, e.g. poverty, lack of
infrastructure and amenities, low level of education and health. As old problems vanish
new problems crop up and more challenges appear on the scene. Globalisation is one of
the great challenges. The continuing concentration on urban development in core regions
also poses a threat of the backwash effect to rural regions and increasing rural-urban
disparity. Rural regions are losing population due to out migration. The problem oriented
approach adopted in rural development in the past has ignored the potential rural heritage
and these strengths are being depleted out of neglect. The potential which should have
been preserved or utilised instead has been destroyed in the process of problem solving.
There are issues of quality and human values. The modern lifestyle and social structure
has eroded traditional values that preserve family structure and community.
Globalisation
Globalisation is a phenomenon of complex interrelationships in economic activities
across international space as a result of increased internationalisation of production
activities. It arises particularly from the development and worldwide adoption of modern
information and telecommunication technologies, the global liberalisation of international
trade and capital movements, the associated enhanced ability of multinational
42
corporations to assemble capital wherever the costs of production are lowest and social
and environmental restrictions are weakest and international agreements that limit the
power of national governments to directly bolster and protect the economies of their
lagging region (Moseley, 2003). The outcome of globalisation is the increased opening
up of local economies to global competition.
By implication globalisation can pose a threat to rural products from increased
competition as well as opportunities from the opening up of markets worldwide. The key
challenge is how to enhance rural products so that they remain the choice of local users
and also serve overseas market. This relates to the question of quality, uniqueness and
cost of the products. Enhancing skills and technology in production and marketing will
ensure quality of product and wider penetration of the market. But quality also relates to
general health and the cleanliness of the environment in the countryside. If it is to
produce good and healthy foods, not only skills and technology matter, but also the
environment. There is a need to portray the quality of the rural environment where the
products come from.
Rural strategies need to focus on identifying niches and the comparative advantage of
each rural locality. The development of rural products must closely integrate with the
safeguarding and enhancing environmental assets. Marketing of quality products must
portray both the quality of the products and also the quality of the environment and
people where the products come from.
43
Uneven Development
Uneven development not only relates to uneven spatial development but also the uneven
process of development in economic power and capital accumulation as expressed in
social inequality. With the phenomenon of globalisation it is expected that the growth of
major cities will continue while absorbing resources from rural areas including labour,
mineral and other natural resources. The state will continue to invest in capital cities and
along development corridors in order to provide a conducive environment to attract
global businesses such as development of mega infrastructure and other modern facilities
to cater for the needs of the cosmopolitan lifestyles of expatriates. This has been
explicitly noted in national policy such as the National Physical Plan which emphasised
concentration of development in major conurbation areas. The formation of the Iskandar
Regional Development Authority would expedite further the process of urban
polarisation.
Due to the nature of global business which is capital intensive and highly specialised in
services, they are most unlikely to have linkages with local small business in rural areas
and thus most unlikely to benefit rural development as a whole.
Under this scenario the gap between urban and rural prosperity will widen. The rural
economy will not be able to catch up, with declining services and out migration will be
unavoidable. The phenomenon of rural decline will occur at an accelerated rate, leaving
behind, the old population, rural poor and a lack of services. Thus, rural development as a
44
measure needed to intervene in the process of uneven development is more pressing and
emphasised for the future.
Rural Variation
Malaysia is very rich in rural heritage. There are wide variations of people and
communities in rural areas. The socio-cultural, economy, physical, values and belief
systems are not similar such as the Malays in traditional villages, Chinese in small towns
and Indians in estates, the indigenous people of Sabah and Sarawak, the remote
communities of Orang Asli and Orang Ulu. Different rural regions also have different
problems and potential. Rural areas near conurbation regions are facing problems of
development pressure, urban activities are continuing to encroach at a rapid pace, with
the rural environment deteriorating and infrastructure under strain.
In remote rural areas, basic infrastructure is still inadequate. Economic activities are still
practised on a subsistence basis while rural communities are losing the younger
generation due to out migration. Rural businesses in small towns and social services can
no longer be sustained and face closure. Modernisation is rapidly changing the lifestyle
and increases the need for cash to consume goods and obtain modern services. Sustaining
livelihood in the rural remoteness is becoming more difficult as natural resources have
been over-exploited, such as the timber industry destroying natural habitat and causing
erosion and river pollution.
45
Acknowledging rural variation is very important in planning the development of rural
areas in the future. By acknowledging local variation, centralised planning becomes less
relevant. There is a need to pursue rural development at a local level as well as for
working collaboratively between central agencies, local agencies and local people in
planning and implementing rural development.
FUTURE DIRECTION
Rural Vision
While rural development in the early period of independence focused on problem solving
to overcome the problem of underdevelopment, under-employment, poverty and
deprivations, the future strategy of rural development should be vision driven. Within the
overall vision of achieving a developed nation status by 2020, national vision and
strategy for rural development should spell out clearly the general direction and strategic
actions to guide rural development at a local level. It should address strategic issues such
as globalisation, uneven development and rural variation which foresee wide ranging
implications for rural development in the future. For example globalisation calls for
strategic concentration of investment in a few core conurbation regions, in order to
compete with other global cities, which will further increase the polarisation effects of
existing core regions. Rural regions will suffer from backwash effects in which rural
resources will be forced to move out from rural areas.
46
A comprehensive review of rural resources at local levels has to be undertaken to address
the issue of rural variation and diversity. Rural strategy in the future has to look into the
strengths and weaknesses of such diversified rural heritage and derive strategic actions to
achieve the vision. There is also a need to look into the emerging agenda of rural
development at an international level to be at par with developed nations, such as
sustainable development and Agenda 21, the Millennium Development Goals and the
philosophy of ethical development emphasises noble universal values, such as that
embedded in the principles of Islam Hadhari.
Rural Resource Management
The way to plan rural areas has to be changed from the development planning approach
towards resource management. As rural areas become smaller in population, there will be
fewer needs for huge government investment. The role of the state will be more one of
managing rural resources and facilitating private sector or rural communities to
participate, and to sustain the prosperity and good quality of life in rural areas.
Conservation of the natural environment would become of more concern and how to
capitalise on the potential of the rural landscape for leisure and tourism activities. Rural
people have to be more friendly to the natural environment and caring of the natural
heritage such as flora and fauna. Rural areas also have to maintain the quality of human
resources which would ensure quality management and leadership.
47
Local Development and Participation
For sustainable management and development of rural areas, it is important that more
people be encouraged to participate in decision making at the local and community levels.
Active participation of local people in planning and implementation of rural development
programmes will ensure better prospects for self reliance and sustainable development.
This calls for the local development model which is essentially area-based or the
territorialisation of development initiatives. It implies a bottom-up approach, mobilising
local people and organisations in attempts to address problems of rural variation and
diversity which could not be tackled at a national or regional level. In developed nations
a local area perspective of rural development is widely applied. The programme of
Gerakan Daya Wawasan in Malaysia is moving towards this approach.
There are sound arguments for the adoption in Malaysia for those related to local
diversity, increasing local participation, adding value to local resources as emphasis on
utilisation of local resources and preventing leakage by not relying on excessive usage of
imported materials and capital. The approach is also a defence against globalisation as it
fosters local distinctness and strengths and thus competitiveness.
The Bumiputera Agenda
Given the future scenario of increasing globalisation of the Malaysian economy, the
policy to promote Bumiputera should be maintained as it was embedded in the bargaining
48
for independence, enshrined in Federal Constitution and the 20 Points and 18 Points
Memorandum for Sabah and Sarawak respectively. The development of Bumiputera
economic activities in rural areas should recognise the complex interplay of social,
economic and political factors influenced by national and international capitalism. The
development of the Bumiputra economy cannot be achieved simply by providing credit
facilities, training and advisory services. It needs to address the structural problems of
uneven concentration and accumulation of capital which favour big cities and benefit a
few capitalists. Within a framework of the capitalist society of Malaysia this suggests that
more effort and commitment have to be given to disperse development, to develop rural
areas and small businesses where the majority of Bumiputera live.
Since the trend of economic development is towards concentration in a few core regions,
efforts to disperse development will be costly and might end up wasting resources if
pursued on a large scale. A viable approach might be to generate selective incentive
policies applied to limited locations based on growth potential such as rural growth
centres and selected new townships in RDAs.
In the development of rural economic activities, emphasis must be given to the
development of those economic activities which have strong linkages with local small
business. This implies giving higher priority to the development of small and medium
scale industries utilising local resources and skills. For example, the operation of small
scale tourist businesses utilising the natural attractiveness of beaches, forest, rivers and
traditional settlements in rural areas will be more successful in promoting local
49
entrepreneurs, in comparison to a large scale tourist resort involving a lot of foreign
capital.
Efforts to promote Bumiputra entrepreneurs should also focus on those entrepreneurs
who have already shown evidence of experience in business and progress. It is also worth
looking into facilitating the heirs of progressive/successful business people who have the
interest and potential to continue businesses already run by their parents.
CONCLUSION
The discussion of rural development experiences in Malaysia reveals that the process of
rural transformation has taken place within the framework of a market economy. Rural
development has been used as a means to correct the failure of the market mechanisms to
trickle down the benefits of development. The persistence of poverty and
underdevelopment in rural areas were the manifestation of uneven development as the
process and outcome of capitalism. The early stages of state intervention focused on the
provision of basic needs such as infrastructure and basic amenities, and efforts to combat
poverty by modernisation of rural economic activities. Given the magnitude of rural
problems, and the deep rooted structure of underdevelopment of the traditional system,
initial measures of fragmented and small scale intervention did not give much impact.
A large scale and integrated approach of intervention was undertaken during the NEP
period of 1970-1990, which addressed both the improvement of the living conditions of
50
the existing villages and the relocation of the rural populace to new land development
schemes. The impact was quite substantial particularly in the case of land settlement
schemes which rectify the structural problems of land redistribution and productivity and
also access to social infrastructure and amenity. In-situ development of rice cultivation
areas also tended to be successful in the effort to improve productivity but has not
sufficiently addressed the issue of land distribution. Similar efforts have been carried out
in Sabah and Sarawak, but due to certain constraints such as land regulations, physical
features and socio-cultural factors the scale of development was relatively smaller.
However, it is unfortunate that physical constraints and time factors have made efforts to
redistribute land through a comprehensive land scheme to the poor sections of rural
communities in Sabah and Sarawak are no longer viable unless highly subsidised by
government. The possible options are through joint venture such as that pursued by the
Sarawak government under the coordination of PELITA. But this kind of venture does
not ensure active participation of the communities and the return was not as remunerative
as the farms managed and worked by individuals as in case of FELDA schemes.
Whatever the case, there is still a future for the rural areas. Rural development has not yet
ventured intp the potential or strengths of rural areas. A more systematic effort has to be
made to identify rural resources or capital in the rich rural heritage. The existing state of
underdevelopment of rural areas should not always be looked as a problem. It can be
viewed and realised into assets such as the unique arts and cultures of rural communities,
traditional skills and knowledge, the natural beauty and ecological resources endowed in
51
certain rural settings, and others which have not been explored sufficiently by
development planners before. It is time to consider rural development from wider and
multi faceted perspectives, not associated with particular disciplines such as development
economies. The curriculum and persons involved in rural development have to be
expanded to include the multi as well as inter disciplinary. Rural development needs
ideas from ecologists, experts on arts and culture, tourism planning and operators,
engineers, geologists, and others apart from development economists and agriculturalists.
52
REFERENCES:
Abdullah Chek Sahamat, Native Customary Right Land Development: An Approach to
improve The Rural Native Wellbeing of Sarawak, Seminar Kebangsaan Perancangan
Bandar dan Wilayah Ke-23 (Skudai: UTM, 21 September 2005)
Abdul Aziz bin Muhammad, Zakat and Rural Development in Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur:
Berita Publishing, 1993)
Azizi Muda, ‘An Evaluation of New Town Development in Malaysia: A Case of DARA’,
(Ph.D Thesis University of Nottingham 1989).
Chamhuri Siwar and Nik Hashim Nik Mustapha, Integrated Rural Development in
Malaysia: An Assessment, Monograph 4, (Bangi: UKM, 1988)
Courtenay, P.P. ‘Rural Development and the Fifth Malaysia Plan’, Jurnal of Rural
Studies, Vol.4, No.3. pp. 249-261, 1988.
Ghani Salleh ‘New Towns and Regional Development in Peninsular Malaysia: A case
Study of Terengganu Tengah’, (Ph.D Thesis, University of Sheffield, 1991.
53
Economic Planning Unit, Malaysia Quality of Life, (Kuala Lumpur: Percetakan Nasional
Malaysia, 2005).
Government of Malaysia, Fifth Malaysia Plan 1986-1990, (Kuala Lumpur: National
Printing Department, 1986)
Government of Malaysia, Sixth Malaysia Plan 1991-1995, (Kuala Lumpur: National
Printing Department, 1991).
Government of Malaysia, The Second Outline Perspective Plan 1991-2000, Kuala
Lumpur: National Printing Department, 1991).
Government of Malaysia, Seventh Malaysia Plan 1996-2000, (Kuala Lumpur: Percetakan
Nasional Malaysia, 1996).
Government of Malaysia, Eighth Malaysia Plan 2001-2005, (Kuala Lumpur: Percetakan
Nasional Malaysia, 2001),
Government of Malaysia The Third Outline Perspective Plan 2001-2010, (Kuala Lumpur:
Percetakan Nasional Malaysia, 2001).
Government of Malaysia, Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006-2010, (Kuala Lumpur: Percetakan
Nasional Malaysia, 2006).
54
Jeffery G. Kitingan and Maximus J. Ongkili eds., Sabah: 25 Years Later, (Kota Kinabalu:
Institute For Development Studies Sabah, 1989).
King, Victor T and Nazaruddin Mohd Jali (eds.) (1992), Issues in Rural Development in
Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur:DBP
Ibrahim Ngah, Frontier Area Development and Migration in Pahang, (M.A Thesis, ANU,
1986)
Ibrahim Ngah, ‘Out-Migration from Kampung Awah, A Settlement Scheme in Jengka’,
Jurnal Teknologi, no. 9, pp.53-65, 1987
Ibrahim Ngah, ‘Business Activities in New Townships in Rural Areas of Peninsular
Malaysia’, (Ph.D Thesis University of Leeds, 1993)
Ibrahim Ngah), Pelan Tindakan Desa, (Skudai: Penerbit UTM, 2003)
Ibrahim Ngah, ‘Rural Sustainability: An Examination of the Practice of Sustainable
Development Principles in a Rural Community in Malaysia’, The Planning Malaysia, Vol,
1, pp. 55-70, 2003
Lee Yong Leng, Penduduk dan Petempatan di Sarawak, (Kuala Lumpur: DBP, 1981)
55
Lee Yong Leng, Sabah: Satu Kajian Geografi Petempatan, (Kuala Lumpur: DBP, 1982)
Mohd Shukri Haji Abdullah Strategi Pembangunan Desa Semenanjung Malaysia, (Kuala
Lumpur: DBP, 1992).
Mohd Yaakub Hj. Johari ed., Socio-Cultural Dimension of Development Planning, (Kota
Kinabalu, IDS, 1989).
Mohd Yaakub Hj. Johari ed., Issues and Strategies in Rural Development, (Kota
Kinabalu, IDS, 1991).
Moseley, M.J, Rural Development, Principle and Practice, (London: Sage Publication,
2003).
Nicholas, Colin, The Orang Asli and The Contest for Resources, (Copenhagen:
International Work Group for Indigenous Affair, 2000).
Norizan Hj. Mohd Nor, ‘Regional Development Planning in Peninsular Malaysia:
Empirical Analysis on Resource Frontier Region’, Jengka, (Ph.D Thesis, University of
Sheffield, 1992)
56
Qizilbash, Muzaffar, Ethical Development, World Development, Vol. 24, N0. 7, pp.
1209-1221, 1996.
Quazi, Akef M.A, Regional Planning in Malaysia: Achievement and Future, (Monograph
Faculty of Built Environment, University of Technology Malaysia, 1987).
Shamsul A.B, ‘The Politics of Poverty eradication: The Implementation of Development
Projects in a Malaysian District’, Pacific Affairs, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp.455-476, 1983.
Silcock, T.H, The Economy of Malaya, (Singapore: Eastern Universities Press, 1963).
Susan Majid and Aziz Majid, Public Sector Land Settlement: Rural Development in West
Malaysia in David A.M and Chaudhri D.P, Rural Development and the State, (London:
Methuen, 1983).
Wong, Tai Chee ‘The Resource Frontier Strategy in Peninsular Malaysia: Case Studies of
Pahang Tenggara and KESEDAR Regions’, (Ph.D Thesis, The Australian National
University, 1989).
Voon Phin Keong, ‘The Rural Development Programme in Sabah, Malaysia, with
Reference to the 1970s’’, Malaysian Journal of Tropical Geography, Vol. 3, pp. 53-67,
1981.
57
Voon Phin Keong and Khoo Soo Hock, ‘The New Villaged in Peninsular Malaysia: A
Socio-Economic Perspective’, Malaysian Journal of Tropical Geography, Vol. 14, pp.
36-55, December 1986
Zulkifli Hj. Mustapha, ‘In-Situ Rural Development in Sabah’, in King, V and Nazaruddin
Mohd. Jali, Issues in Rural Development in Malaysia, (Kuala Lumpur: DBP, 1992)
Zulkurnain Hj Awang, ‘Problems of Implementation of Rural Development Progrmmes:
A case Study of The New Approach to Village and Rural Development (Halacara Baru)
in Peninsular Malaysia’, (Ph.D Thesis, University of Leeds, 1989)
Zulkurnain Hj Awang, Problems of Implementing Reform-based Rural Transformation:
Theory and Experience, (Kuala Lumpur: INTAN, 2001).