Statics should tally with situation on the ground



THE uninitiated can be confused when confronted  with an array of impressive statistic because they can easily mislead them if wrongly interpreted.

For example, averages and percentages can distort the real picture. Since taking charge of the Federal Government some 20 over months ago, the Najib administration has come up with catchy slogans and named programmes withh acronyms that are difficult to remember.

In recent months, the Government has released a range of figures as a proof that the nation has been doing well and the people had never had it so good. They, therefore, should not believe lies spread by the Opposition.

DPM Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, for instance, proudly declared recently that the Government has achieved its target of eradicating abject poverty in the country by the end of 2010 as promised.

Tell that - that they are no longer poor- however, to some 55 parents of undernourished children from Penampang who last month received from the Health Ministry food baskets sponsored by the Women, Family and Community Development Ministry under 1Azam programme. They, therefore, may not qualify for Government assistance in the future.

Convey also the same message:

 • To 25 parents of children in Klias near Beaufort and to 21 parents in Kunak who also received food baskets for their children.
 • To the Rungus in Kudat peninsula, particularly in Pitas and Kota Marudu who have no permanent source of steady income to sustain themselves and their families.
 •To the landless people in Tongod, Kinabatangan and Beluran who struggle daily to feed their families.
 • To the Muruts in Pensiangan. Nabawan, Sook, Sipitang and many other ethnic groups throughout the State who yearn for better living conditions.
 • To some 12,000 hardcore poor families alll over the State who struggle to earn enough to have a daily meal.

Surprisingly, the Government that could not eradicate poverty in Sabahh during the past 47 years despite spending billions of ringgit under a variety of programmes has suddenly managed to halve the poverty rate within a year as if it has found a magic wand to do the trick.

During the budget session of the State Legislative Assembly in November, State Rural Development, Minister Datuk Ewon Ebin revealed that a study by the Economic Planning unit under the Prime Minister's Department showed that there were 24,100 hardcore poor families in Sabah at the end of 2009

However, by Nov. 9 last year the figure dropped to 11,955 - a reduction of almost 50 per cent.
(After chairing a State-level Steering Committee meeting on Poverty Eradication, however, CM Datuk Seri Musa Aman provided a different set of figures. He said there were only 7,455 hardcore poor families compared to 24,100 at the end of 2009.)

So, how did the Government do it? Under its various programmes to alleviate the sufferings of the hardcore poor, the Government grants relief in cash and kind to each hardcore poor family. It is understood that the cash they receive is now counted as income.

Thus, their names are removed from the list of hardcore poor. What happens after the cash distribution stops and the families have no income remains unexplained. However, the outcome is not difficult to imagine the number of hardcore poor oor families will climb back to the original number.

The Government also provides food baskets to the under-nourished children. Each basket worth RM300 contains 5kg of rice, cereals, milk powder, tins of sardine, biscuits, cough mix, vitamins and chocolate drinks.

It is not known whether the distribution of baskets containing food is a continual exercise or the one-off effort to educate mothers on the importance of feeding their children with nutritious food.

What is the ultimate objective of the cash relief and allotment of food baskets? The programmes may not produce the desired results and may, instead, have a negative effect on the families if it becomes a permanent feature.

Instead of working to earn a living they may become over dependent on the Government handouts. This may psychologically cripple them and make them lazy.

In fact, there are ample signs that this is happening within some communities.

There is also the nagging feeling among taxpayers that the Government is not serious in its intention to eradicate poverty because it works in its favour politically.

Welfare aid is used as a tool to secure votes of the poor. Millions of ringgit has been expended, including cash handouts under the pretext of welfare to assist people during the election year that otherwise cannot be justified.

Often these programmes have been hijacked and abused by politicians from the ruling party who recommend their relatives and supporters for aid although they are well-off and, do not qualify.

Sabah is notorious for abuse of Government aid programmes. It began immediately after independence and continues until today.

The newly-formed Sabah Alliance Government wanted to help the disadvantaged and devised aid schemes for the farmers and fishermen who were the poorest.

The Sabah Padi Board issued LPOs to paddy farmers and the Rubber Fund Board issued the document to rubber smallholders to obtain free supplies of fertilizers from government-appointed dealers to boost their paddy and rubber output.

Instead of taking fertilizers, many of the farmers and smallholders sold their LPOs to the dealers at half-price and collected cash.

The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries which managed the aid relief programmes consisting of free outboard engines for fishermen was confronted with similar scams.

The fishermen also sold their LPOs issued by the department instead of collecting the free outboard motor engines from the dealers.

The farmers and fishermen signed receipt for receiving the goods which enabled the dealers to escape prosecution.

The Sabah Padi Board was formed to boost paddy production to make the State self-sufficient in rice and improve the living conditions of the farmers. It spent millions of ringgit without anything to show for it.

The Berjaya Government tried but failed to reform it and it eventually closed it down.The Rubber Fund Board set up by the British to revitalise the industry by replanting aging rubber trees in large plantations and develop smallholder schemes to resettle the landless had a better success rate.

By and large, it achieved its goals. As years passed, the successive new Governments introduced their own variety of welfare programmes to assist the poor. However, politicians from the ruling party abused the schemes and they failed to achieve their declared objectives.

For example, parents of civil servants and politicians received cash aid meant, for the aged and poor. It is suspected that the current high figure of hardcore poor in Sabah is due to a similar rip-off where unqualified persons are registered to receive the cash benefits from the Government.

This is made possible because there is a no means income test to determine whether the person really qualifies to receive relief under the schemes specifically devised to assist the hardcore poor.

Aid in the form of cash and kind may be justified if it is for immediate assistance to relieve the sufferings.However, the only way to free the people from the clutches of poverty or abject poverty is to provide skills and create permanent source of income to enable them to earn living.

Malaysia is blessed with ample resources, including fertile land. Therefore, the equitable development and. use of these resources must be the part of any solution.

During the early years of Malayan independence, the Government came up with the concept of land development with the aim of providing land to the landless.

It was aware, however, that giving land alone to the landless will not eliminate poverty. It will require finance and skills to properly develop and manage it.

Thus, the Federal Land Development Authority (Felda) was born. The concept received the worldwide attention and praise and was described as the solution to the problems faced by masses in the Third World nations.
However, the planners did not realise the shortcomings of the concept, particularly the creation of a debt cycle whereby the smallholders perpetually owed development cost to Felda.

By the time the smallholder finished paying for the original subsidised development cost, his smallholding also needed replanting its crop to maintain its economic viability.

Felda found it difficult to re-finance the replanting of the smallholdings and required more funds. Eventually, Felda ended up as the world's largest plantation and smallholders as its shareholders. That was not the original aim of establishing Felda.

The Berjaya Government introduced a unique land development concept to avoid the debt trap. It called it an in-situ land development.

Under the scheme, the farmer is not uprooted from his village and resettled in a new land scheme. He remained in his home in the village, tilled or cared for the land he owned but was given skills to improve quality and yield of his existing crops.

The farmer was also introduced with new crops that earned him higher income. The farmer did not have to pay for land development cost, house and need not lose his neighbours and friends thus maintaining his social links.

However, the concept did not answer the problem of the landless. The Berjaya Government came up with a preplanned land scheme with infrastructure, housing and essential services but the farmer himself was allowed to develop the land.

The Government was in the process of selecting and allocating land when it lost the general election. The new Government abandoned the scheme and it was accused of selling the land to big plantations from Peninsula.
Until today, various efforts to eradicate poverty in different names continue but none has succeeded. It is a pity because Malaysia is a rich country inhabited by people some of whom are extremely poor.



Datuk Patel is a veteran journalist who served the Sabah Economic Development Corporation (Sedco) in various capacities and was also Press Secretary to former Chief Minister Datuk Harris