RURAL RESEARCH & PLANNING GROUP (RRPG)
THE 5TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE AND
FIELD STUDY IN MALAYSIA 2014
RURAL POVERTY: POLICY PERSPECTIVE,
PEOPLES’ PERCEPTION AND THE ROLE OF
GOVERNMENT TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY
SHARIFAH ROHAYAH SHEIKH DAWOOD &
SA’ADIATUL MAHFUZAH ABU HASSAN
INTRODUCTION
Government effort:
1) New Economic Policy (NEP)
- eradicate poverty irrespective of race
- restructure the society in order to correct economic inbalances
- eliminate the identification of races with economic functions
2) National Development Policy (DPN)
- underdeveloped
- trapped by unemployment and poverty
- done through the rural restructuring of the society
- Focus on development more concentrated in rural areas that needs to
increase the quality of life in the rurality
INTRODUCTION
Main Objectives:
- Explore the types of programs introduced in the rural villages and its
impact to the life of the communites
Three Rural Areas:
1) Parit Buntar (Kg Tanjung Tiandang, Kg Kedah, Kg Titi Serong and Kg
Simpang Empat )
2) Baling (Kg Sera Ulu, Kg Sera Baru, Kg Dalam Wang and Kg Titi Teduri)
3) Penang (Seberang Perai Utara)
- Methods being used included quantitative (questionnaire survey) and
qualitative (informal interview) with the rural communities
- Villagers’ perceptions on the programs were deemed necessary and
important to evaluate the nature of the program, its accessibility and
effectiveness to the community being studied in that area
LITERATUR REVIEW: POVERTY
ERADICATION
Malaysia:
- Improving the standards of living
- Expanding the trade
- Capital and technology flows
- Leaving notable progress in poverty reduction
- Malaysia has indeed achieved the MDGs of alleviating poverty rate well
before 2015, poverty had declined from 52.4% in 1970 to 12.4% in
1992 and further reduced to 3.8% in 2009 (Abdul Hakim et al. 2010;
Muhamed and Haron, 2011; EPU, 2012)
Elements identified in Defining Poverty:
1) Poverty can be reduced or eradicated to rescue people from social
problems
2) Identify who are the poor and their social group
3) Determine poverty in general for certain community groups
LITERATUR REVIEW: POVERTY
ERADICATION
Poor people included:
- Old people alone
- People with less education living in suburban or rural areas
- Immigrants
- Long term unemployed
- Single mothers
- Children living 1 poor households
- Prisoners and ex-prisoners
- Alcohol and drug abusers
According to U. Aziz (1964):
- Poverty is not getting the enough income to fulfill the basic needs
- Nutrition deficit/Malnutrition
LITERATUR REVIEW: POVERTY
ERADICATION
Poverty is divided into four types:
1) Relative
2) Absolute
3) Structural
4) Normative
(See Holman, 1978)
C. Siwar (2001):
1) Economic dimension (lack of basic amenities in terms of income,
financial needs or capital)
2) Socio-cultural dimension (poverty culture)
3) Education dimension (mentality and knowledge)
4) Health dimension (malnutrition, hunger, physical and mental
disability)
LITERATUR REVIEW: POVERTY
ERADICATION
5) Spatial dimension (rural or urban area)
6) Gender dimension (women and single mothers)
7) Environmental dimension (deteriorating ecology, degradation and
pollution
- Rural areas: household is categorized as hardcore poor if their income
level below RM666/per month
- Urban areas: household with a monthly income of RM2, 000 and
accumulated asset of less than RM50, 000 is categorized as urban poor
and eligible for the Micro Credit Fund of Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia (AIM)
(Awang Selamat, 2009).
LITERATUR REVIEW: POVERTY
ERADICATION
Table 1 shows the Base Line Poverty Level (PGK) set up by EPU for rural and
urban area of Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak
Table 1: Base Line Poverty Level (PGK)
REGION
SEMENANJUNG
Malaysia
Urban
Rural
Sabah & Labuan
Urban
Rural
Sarawak
Urban
Rural
POOR
PGK 2012
HOUSEHOLD
PER CAPITA
830
210
840
790
1, 090
1, 080
1, 120
920
960
870
220
190
240
240
240
230
230
220
HARDCORE POOR
PGK 2012
HOUSEHOLD
PERCAPITA
520
130
510
530
660
630
710
600
630
570
130
120
140
140
150
140
150
140
Source: Economic Planning Unit; Office of Federal Development, Kedah, 2013
LITERATUR REVIEW: POVERTY
ERADICATION
- Reference to the EPU data, the PGK for 2009 is standardized in the 10th
Malaysia Plan (RMK-10) which is poor PGK RM760 for the household
- Meanwhile hardcore poor is RM460 (Ministry of Women, Family and
Community Development, 2012)
- The PGK set up by the Ministry in 2012 is in tandem with the states
throughout Malaysia except for Penang whereby between the year
2009-2011, the hardcore poor is RM500 and below, in 2012 is RM600
and below and for 2013 is RM770 and below
- Meanwhile the PGK for poor in Penang is RM770 and above
(Implementation Coordination Unit, Penang, 2013).
POVERTY IN THE NORTHERN
STATES OF MALAYSIA
- The analysis revolves around the incidence of poverty in the district of
Kedah and Perak
- A pilot study was undertaken in two separate villages in Perak and Kedah
respectively
- Further survey is done to gather data and information regarding district
with the highest poverty level in order to examine the spatial inequalities
between regions
- This is followed by a discussion about the programs provided to the
rural communities to eradicate poverty
POVERTY IN THE NORTHERN
STATES OF MALAYSIA
Table 2 shows the statistic for poverty in the districts of Kedah for the year
2011
Table 2: Statistic of Poverty for Kedah Districts, 2011
Bil
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
District
Baling
Bandar Baharu
Kota Setar
Kuala Muda
Kubang Pasu
Kulim
Padang Terap
Pendang
Pokok Sena
Pulau Langkawi
Sik
Yan
Total
Poor
1, 572
86
634
607
389
348
258
264
519
109
941
349
6, 073
Poverty Level
Hardcore Poor
2, 113
170
2, 067
1, 473
877
629
574
719
662
172
2, 050
819
12, 322
Total
3, 685
256
2, 701
2, 080
1, 263
974
832
983
1, 181
281
2, 991
1, 168
18, 395
Source: Economic Planning Unit, Kedah, 2011
POVERTY IN THE NORTHERN
STATES OF MALAYSIA
- The figures shows that the highest statistic for poverty level is for
the district of Baling with 1, 572 people and hardcore poor is 2, 113
people as compared to other districts
Meanwhile Table 3 shows the statistic of poverty for 2013
State/District/Mukim
Kedah
Total
Baling
Bandar Baharu
Kota Setar
Kuala Muda
Kubang Pasu
Kulim
Langkawi
Padang Terap
Pendang
Pokok Sena
Sik
Yan
Poor
2013
Quarter year (Forth)
December
Poverty Level
Hardcore
Easily Poor
Marginalized
Total
No of Household
Head (NoH)
NoH
NoH
NoH
NoH
903
128
817
1026
784
324
179
478
281
149
879
386
6334
6334
217
29
214
223
151
73
34
108
84
43
245
71
1492
1492
647
242
724
1409
805
387
354
503
300
190
891
477
6929
6929
1206
254
907
1396
933
493
423
742
439
218
1159
416
8586
8586
2973
653
2662
4054
2673
1277
990
1831
1104
600
3174
1350
23341
23341
POVERTY IN THE NORTHERN
STATES OF MALAYSIA
The following tables show statistic of poverty for Penang in 2011 and
2013 respectively
Table 4: Statistic of Poverty by District in Penang, 2011
District
Jan
343
201
63
38
125
770
202,
435
SPU
SPT
SPS
DTL
DBD
Total
Assist
Total
(RM)
Feb
342
187
64
38
128
759
199,
165
Mac
342
185
64
38
127
756
198,
365
April
323
187
65
40
126
741
192,
670
Mei
323
186
66
41
126
742
192,
670
Hardcore Poor
Jun
July
323
323
188
186
66
66
41
42
125
125
743
742
188,
188,
620
135
Aug
323
186
66
43
125
743
188,
465
Sept
272
185
66
43
124
690
175,
685
Okt
272
186
66
43
124
691
176,
925
Nov
272
188
66
44
126
696
176,
925
Dis
295
187
66
47
126
721
182,
515
Sumber: Unit Perancang Ekonomi Penang, 2013
Table 5: Statistic of Poverty by District in Penang, 2013
District
SPU
SPT
SPS
DTL
DBD
Total
Assist
Total
(RM)
Jan
396
185
60
68
116
825
211,
325
Feb
396
185
60
68
116
825
211,
025
Mac
397
181
60
55
114
807
203,
930
April
387
181
55
55
110
788
198,
170
Mei
387
181
55
57
110
790
198,
150
Poor
Jun
July
416
426
180
179
55
64
57
57
111
111
819
837
209, 219,
911
591
Aug
426
179
69
60
111
845
222,
305
Sept
434
178
69
65
114
860
227,
570
Okt
441
189
69
67
114
880
231,
250
Nov
-
Dis
-
Sumber: Unit Perancang Ekonomi Penang, 2013
POVERTY ERADICATION
PROGRAMS
Economic Policies in Nigeria:
Programs like:
1) Universal Free Primary Education (UPE)
2) Subsidy program for various activities especially agriculture,
credit facilities and social services, health services, rural water
supply scheme, rural electricity supply by the Rural
Electrification Board (REBs)
3) Directory for Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI):
infrastructural development, focusing on women in the rural
villages like for food processing activities, starting new business
to improve life style, health and collaboration
POVERTY ERADICATION
PROGRAMS
4) Rural community banking, National Directorate of Employment
(NDE), Small and Medium Enterprises and family support programs
(Oyeranti et al., 2005)
5) Programs provided by government (multi-sectoral program for
agriculture, health, education and transportation)
6) The National Directorate of Employment (multi-sectoral program
that provides skill enhancement and public work program)
7) Agricultural programs involve the National Agricultural Land
Development Authority, the Strategic Grains Reserves Program and
the Program for Accelerated Wheat Production
POVERTY ERADICATION
PROGRAMS
8) Health sector, programs such as Primary Health Care (PHC) Scheme
and Guinea-worm Eradication Program were introduced
9) Programs for education includes Nomadic Education Program to
establish education curriculum, training for teachers and
infrastructure facilities for school
10) Transportation sector involves the Federal Urban Mass Transit
Program providing new public bus services
POVERTY ERADICATION
PROGRAMS
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD):
- international financial institution established in 1977 to eradicate
poverty and enhance food production
-
specialized mission is to enable poor rural people to overcome
poverty by mobilizing resources to invest in development
opportunities for poor rural people, including helping to improve
the lives of the communities by building farm and non-farm
enterprises that are sustainable and integrated into national and
global markets and value chains
-
aims to empower poor rural women and men in developing
countries to achieve higher incomes and improved food security
PROGRAM FOR SUSTAINABLE RURAL
COMMUNITY IN MALAYSIA
Government strategy:
through the Ministry of Rural & Regional Development (KKLW):
1) Income Increment Program (PPP)
2) Training and Career Program
3) Housing Assistance Program (PBR)
4) Human Mind Development Program
5) Balanced Supplement Food Program
6) Local Community Development Program
7) Education Excellence Program
8) Child-care Center Program
9) ASDB-Sejahtera Program
PROGRAM FOR SUSTAINABLE
RURAL COMMUNITY
National Development Plan (NDP 1991-2000):
- to lessen the rate of poverty
Under the Dasar Wawasan Negara 2001-2010:
- aimed to reduce poverty level to 0.5% in 2005
- Direct financial assistance was limited especially for the elderly
and the disabled
- The program for poverty eradication is mostly concentrated in
agriculture sector due to the fact that this sector constitutes the
highest proportion of poor communities
PROGRAM FOR SUSTAINABLE
RURAL COMMUNITY
-
-
Amongst the programs implemented were to relocate those who
are without land and with small size of land that is noneconomical into the scheme for new land
The pioneers were provided with a complete house with
electricity and water, able to develop the land in-situ through
conservation and land merging
DISCUSSION
-
Responden detail were obtained from District office of Baling,
Parit Buntar and Seberang Prai
- Some other information was also gathered from the district
Penghulu & Welfare Department Committee of the JKKK through
the Ketua Kampung
- Primary data (questionnaire survey and informal interview)
- Secondary data (from state authorities)
- From the survey, programs for assisting the rural community for
the three states are provided by the Welfare Department (JKM):
a) Assistance for single mothers
b) Education
c) Assistance for the disabled (OKU)
- Of this, important issues are covered for two areas: Baling, Kedah
and Parit Buntar, Perak
DISCUSSION
Table 6 illustrates the programs in Kedah, Penang and Northern
Perak
- Based on the survey findings, there are 122 respondents and out
of this only 25 receive this aid from the government
- Whereas the remaining 97 do not receive any form of aid or
government assistant program
- Most of the government aid program for the communities is
received through the Welfare Department (JKM) such as aid for
the elderly, single mothers, institution of higher education
- Majority gave the feedback on the 1 Malaysia People’s Aid
(BRIM). This is the outcome of the 2012 Budget Presentation: the
government announced to give out a one-off cash payment RM
500 to households with an income of less than RM3, 000 a month
DISCUSSION
Table 6: Communities ‘Assistance Program in Kedah, Penang and Perak
JENIS BANTUAN
KEDAH
Welfare Department and People’s Housing
Welfare Department and Single Mothers
PERAK
I Malaysia People’s Aid (BR1M)
Family, Women and Society (KWAMP)
Pension
Palau Pinang
Institution of Higher Learning Aid
Single Mother
Schooling
JUMLAH
KEKERAPAN
1
1
10
2
1
5
4
1
25
Source: Survey, Field Study, 2014
DISCUSSION
-
-
-
-
Under the JKM there are various government aid program which
is among others the aid for the elderly, aid for children, for the
poor and homeless, flood survivors, welfare aid and help for the
disabled communities (JKM, 2013)
The Table and Figure below show the number of respondents for
the field survey in three districts of the state of Perak, Penang
and Kedah
The number of female respondents outnumbered the male
respondents since those women were at home during the time of
the interview were done
Most of the male household was out to work at that time, thus
the selection of respondents turn out to be female dominated
which is about 78 of them as compared to 44 male from the age
group of between 21-61
DISCUSSION
-
-
Female respondents were mainly in the age group of 41-50 (21 of
them). Whereas, the highest number of male respondents came
from the age group of over 61 years old
The questions asked was on the type of financial aid given,
funding program, how the funding arranged and to what extent
the respondents agreed that the aid/program help eradicate
poverty in the rural area
Table 7: Number of Respondents by Gender in Baling, Parit Buntar & Penang
Gender
Male
Total
Female
<21
1
4
5
21-30
2
6
8
31-40
9
12
21
41-50
8
21
29
51-60
6
16
22
18
19
37
44
78
122
Age
61>
Total
DISCUSSION
Table 8: Government Financial Aid for the Rural Communities
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
0
3
2.5
2.5
2.5
Yes
46
37.7
37.7
40.2
No
73
59.8
59.8
100.0
122
100.0
100.0
Valid
Total
Table 8 reveals that only 37.7% received financial aid from the government as compared to
59.9% who do not receive any aid/assistance. This is due to the reason that most of the assistance
goes to the most deprived and poor with the highest number of household. The determining
factor for eligibility is based on level of income, status of the head of household, disability and
number of household and number of children that is still schooling
DISCUSSION
Table 9: Limited Government Aid to Eradicate Poverty
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
0
2
1.6
1.6
1.6
Strongly Disagree
5
4.1
4.1
5.7
Disagree
20
16.4
16.4
22.1
Not Sure
11
9.0
9.0
31.1
Agree
76
62.3
62.3
93.4
8
6.6
6.6
100.0
122
100.0
100.0
Strongly Agree
Total
Table 9 shows the level of satisfaction amongst the respondents from the scale as stated above.
About 76 respondents agree that government aid is limited in eradicating poverty whereas 20
respondents disagree with the statement. 11 respondents were not sure and only 5 strongly
disagree and 8 strongly agree. The number of those that strongly disagree that the government
aid is limited is very few because there are many channels whereby the communities can benefit
from the aid and assistance to overcome poverty incidence. However the access to information
amongst the villagers are limited. Opportunities to apply for aid/assistance whether for short or
long term usually goes through the Ketua Kampong (Head of Village). In fact the villages are
unaware of the channels that they should go to for applying aid, to whom that they should
approach and there is no access for transportation for their mobility especially for those very
elderly and ill. Their hope is the role of the Ketua Kampong to help them for getting the aid
properly
DISCUSSION
Table 10: : Limited Financial Aid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
0
3
2.5
2.5
2.5
Strongly Disagree
8
6.6
6.6
9.0
Disagree
29
23.8
23.8
32.8
Not Sure
7
5.7
5.7
38.5
Agree
64
52.5
52.5
91.0
Strongly agree
11
9.0
9.0
100.0
122
100.0
100.0
Total
Table 10 reveals that there are some villagers that agree that the aid given by government
especially the financial assistance is inadequate. About 64 people in the three districts agree with
the statement which is 52% of them. The financial aid given is based on the number of household
in a family. If the number of household is 4, the financial aid given is RM450 and if the number
of household is 2, the total aid is RM200 (Telephone Interview, Welfare Department of Kerian
District, 18th of July 2014)
DISCUSSION
Table 11: Financial Aid Able to Elevate Poverty Level
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
0
4
3.3
3.3
3.3
Strongly Disagree
7
5.7
5.7
9.0
Disagree
20
16.4
16.4
25.4
Not Sure
9
7.4
7.4
32.8
Agree
69
56.6
56.6
89.3
Strongly Agree
13
10.7
10.7
100.0
122
100.0
100.0
Total
In terms of financial aid able to elevate poverty level, about 69 people agree with this statement.
Only 20 people disagree with this. They felt that the aid provided by the government is effective
to elevate poverty level among the villagers but can only help to ease their financial problem for
short term. According to Encik AZ, an informant from Parit Buntar, the financial aid is not
enough for his big household. And most of this aid is basically for education and higher
institution financial aid which is seasonal (Informal Interview, 16th of July 2014). The table
below gives more detail on this
DISCUSSION
Table 12: Types of Aid Received
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
None
77
63.1
63.1
63.1
Welfare Department
13
10.7
10.7
73.8
People’s Housing Scheme
4
3.3
3.3
77.0
Single Mother Program
4
3.3
3.3
80.3
Education Program
9
7.4
7.4
87.7
Higher Institution Program
8
6.6
6.6
94.3
Program for the Disabled
2
1.6
1.6
95.9
More than one program
5
4.1
4.1
100.0
122
100.0
100.0
Total
The table shows the type of aid received by the villagers. Out of 122 people, 77 did not receive
any aid from the government
CONCLUSION
-
This research aims to explore the response of the rural
communities in the northern states of the Peninsular Malaysia
towards government assistance program to eradicate poverty
level
- There are various programs being implemented to help the rural
villagers in the form of:
a) financial support
b) programs for education
c) housing and others
- The level of accessibility towards the program, the effectiveness of
the program have actually helped to bring out some of the
communities from poverty trap. However there are also some
villagers who do not receive enough aid/assistance due to some
underlying factors as discussed above.
CONCLUSION
-
Nevertheless, many of the villagers have taken the opportunities
given by the government to improve and upgrade their life
-
It is anticipated that in the long run, more programs can be
effectively implemented and more thoroughly evaluated and
monitored programs based on the eligibility and condition of the
rural people need to be done from the authorities involved
-
The findings also revealed that the level of access to information
needs to be examined and improved especially in terms of the
relationship between the Kampong Head (Ketua Kampung) and
the villagers.
CONCLUSION
-
More opportunities should be given for the rural people in
terms of having access to social media and how this can help
educate them more on the types of programs provided by the
government and how they can apply for it
-
There is a need for a more holistic nature in approaching this
issue of poverty and how the rural people can be helped out and
rescued from further difficulties
-
It is more of a concerted effort from the government and other
bodies as well as the villagers in order to fulfill the need of the
rurality and for achieving a more sustainable community in the
long term
Thank You