Agrarian Transition in Southeast Asia – The Malaysian Insight

By: Syahaneem Binti Mohamad Zainalabidin

Agrarian transition in Southeast Asia (SEA) countries reflects almost the same pathways. It is to be noted that most of the countries (except Thailand), were former colonised. During pre-independence, these countries' policies on rural and agriculture were much likely to favour their mother colonies, such as the opening up of land for plantation estates owned by the Western companies and development policies that seemed to bias toward the urban areas. Towards independence and in the years following, these countries' policies are made directly to improve the rural sector by narrowing the rural-urban divide. During these countries' shift from underdevelopment to development, rural and agriculture development and other modernisation programs simultaneously transformed the rural and agriculture sector to a greater extent and incited the agrarian transition. SEA has undergone the most dramatic shifts in its agrarian sector in the last few decades, and this transformation is affecting the societies and economies of this region. The agrarian transition in SEA has shifted from rural societies that depend upon agricultural livelihoods to predominantly urbanised, industrialised and market-based societies (De Koninck, 2004), which implies a significant process of social change in the modern world. General trajectories of change in this region are exemplified by the increasing market integration of rural production into the national and global economy, the diversification of livelihoods, changing mobility and migration patterns and ongoing processes of industrialisation and urbanisation (Drahmoune, 2013). 

In the Malaysian case, the agrarian transition can be observed since the mid-twentieth century. Since 1957, Malaysia has experienced a succession of fifteen five-year development plans. The Malaysian government defined and applied its economic, social, and political development goals through these plans. The government made hefty interventions and investments to ensure that Malaysia liberated itself from the discriminatory colonial policies on rural and agriculture to become an economy that could mobilise its rural area and agriculture to alleviate poverty. Although a great deal of attention was given to rural development directed at agriculture development in the earlier years after independence, Malaysia's agricultural policy has since undergone evolution to spearhead the industrialisation programme. This evolution was affected by the policies and other factors such as market and international demand. New planning norms and development goals were imputed to agricultural policy. These new policy directions were evident in the shifting pattern of resource allocations for the agricultural sector, as presented in the successive Malaysia development plans. As a result of these development plans, Malaysian agricultural share of national GDP has shown decreasing trend from 22.9% in 1980 to only 7.4% in 2020 (Department of Statistics, 2021). It is to be noted that peasant economies of agricultural smallholders predominantly marketed rural Malaysia. The British colonial period of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries saw the rise of large-scale crop plantations or 'estate' agriculture. These estate plantations cultivate cash crops, especially rubber and palm oil. These estates pre-owned by the colonial had successfully been nationalised by the late 1990s. Peasant agriculture, oriented towards subsistence and based primarily on rice cultivation, dramatically declined over the late twentieth century (Thompson, 2014). Lim (1973) stated that "the structural change in Malaysia's economy was relatively rapid from 1955 to 1970". During the said period, numerous government agencies have been established to assist rural people. Several series of efforts by the government have been made to remove institutional handicaps (Yui, 1980), involving land reform, provision of infrastructure facilities, and educating rural people in the modernisation of their values to improve their keenness for economic development. Malaysia has a distinct internal migration context, with high urban-urban migration and low rural-urban movement, particularly when compared to other Southeast Asian countries. Malaysia has had the most rapid rural population decrease during the past decade compared to Indonesia and the Philippines, which have experienced similar striking changes (Preston and Ibrahim Ngah, 2012). While this sector employs approximately one million people, roughly half of them are foreign workers, indicating a reliance on foreign labour. With the increasing trend of urban-urban and rural-urban migration, most agricultural sectors have lost their original local labourers. Rural areas, land development schemes and smallholdings (where most of the agriculture sectors take place) are left inhabited by older people. These make the agricultural work challenging, and without hiring foreign workers to fill the employment gap, working on the farm is challenging for the ageing local farmers. Another emerging challenge for Malaysia, as with other SEA neighbours, is the growing scarcity of land for further agricultural expansion. The land development program was a crucial strategy in the earliest years after independence to develop the rural and agricultural sectors. The opening of land for further agriculture expansion resulted in the conversion of large forested areas, much for rubber and oil palm cultivation. This scenario is also observed in Indonesia, especially after the palm oil boom in the 1970s. Conversely, due to the palm oil boom, agricultural land designated for other crops such as rubber, cocoa, paddy and others were switched to oil palm. With the substantially utilised land area in Peninsular Malaysia, land expansion is carried out in Sabah and Sarawak. On top of that, Malaysian palm oil companies are also expanding by investing and owning oil palm plantations outside this country, particularly in Indonesia.

Malaysia has been undergoing a dynamic development process for more than six decades, culminating in a significant transformation of its economy, political system, social organisation, and civic culture. However, the only chance for this country to be successful in becoming a "global player" in the era of liberalisation and globalisation is by building competitiveness in agriculture (Tengku Ariff and Chubashini, 2009). Malaysian agriculture has significant economic potential, but its transformation must be accompanied by significant social change. Furthermore, food security issues have become more critical due to the pandemic's impact on agricultural production and prices. This suggests that the agriculture sector, especially the food crop sector, should be revisited as a potential source of employment opportunities, as well as increased capital investment in modernising it. There are many possibilities for improvement, for instance, the empowerment of small-scale farmers and firmer strategic collaboration and joint ventures between the government, private sector, and non-governmental organisations.

References:

De Koninck, R. (2004). The Challenges of the Agrarian Transition in Southeast Asia. Labour, Capital and Society 37: 285-288.

Department of Statistics, Malaysia. (2021). Selected Agricultural Indicators, Malaysia, 2021. https://www.dosm.gov.my/v1/index.php?r=column/cthemeByCat&cat=72&bul_id=TDV1YU4yc1Z0dUVyZ0xPV0ptRlhWQT09&menu_id=Z0VTZGU1UHBUT1VJMFlpaXRRR0xpdz09

Drahmoune, F. (2013) Agrarian Transitions, Rural Resistance and Peasant Politics in SEA. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs 32(1): 111-139.

Preston, D. and Ibrahim Ngah. (2012). Interpreting Rural Change in Malaysia. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 33:351-364.

Tengku Mohd Ariff Tengku Ahmad and Chubashini Suntharalingam. (2009). Transformation and Economic Growth of the Malaysia Agricultural Sector. Economic and Technology Management Review 4: 1-10.

Yui, A.H.K. 1980. Rural Development in Malaysia-Issues and Problems Confronting MADA, FELDA and RISDA. Asian Journal of Social Science, Volume 8(1): 64 – 86.

Tarikh Input: 14/06/2022 | Kemaskini: 14/06/2022 | noorbaiti