Meeting Targets… and missing people?

1. Meeting Targets…and missing people? Khoo Khay Jin 7 Sep 2006 Kuching

2. Summary • Malaysia, including Sarawak, can meet/surpass MDGs, on the average • while missing many groups: the poorest and most vulnerable, disappearing in the indicators • Hence, need to reach out to these groups if National Mission (and MDGs) is to be meaningfully met • Plans show awareness, but policy mismatch? • and go beyond MDGs to address inequality

3. Main Points • Targets met, policies fine, but indicators mis-specified -- with implications for people • Targets met, policies fine, indicators well-specified -- yet whole social groups missed • Policies fine for GDP growth, but unintended, unmanaged, unheeded socio-economic impacts -- with implications for people and long-term growth and equity • No policies (yet), e.g. social pensions; policies, but i-c issues, e.g. b-p minorities

4. Poverty • Money-metric: Poverty Line Income • our current 2004 PLI RM765 (9MP), unrevised would have been RM608; on average HH size of 4.6 • per capita PLI RM167, unrevised RM132, i.e. difference of just over RM1 a day

5. Poverty Line Issues • Food PLI as proportion of PLI increased from 50% to >60% (Food PLI: RM482, unrevised RM304) • Redefinition raised PLI by 26%, but poverty incidence doubled, from 3.8 to 7.5% -- considerable no. at margins • this isn’t nit-picking; suggests high degree of sensitivity to setting of the line (what a difference RM1 a person a day makes) • Contrary to Sabah, Rural PLI < Urban PLI

6. Sensitivity of PLI • 1999 (nationally) (8MP: Table 3.3): • 27% of HH had HH income <RM1,000 • 46% <RM1,500 • bottom 40% mean: RM865 (Rural - RM670) • Overall median: RM1,704 • 1999 HES Sarawak • HH Exp<RM500: 46% on food • HH Exp RM500-599: 39% on food • note that 200 CPI gives 32.5% weight on food

7. “Revised” PLI • Using data from HES 1999 of bottom two expenditure groups suggests: • PLI between RM1,046 and RM1,246 • Say, 20% income increase in bottom income classes (MTR 8MP:Table 4.4) • substantial implications for poverty rate

8. Beyond Money-Metric Poverty • Dimensions missed (partly caught by other MDGs): • community resources, incl social; sustainability • security • environment • Major dimension missed, not caught by MDGs: Inequality • income share of bottom 40% of households dropped from 14% (1999) to 13.5% (2004) (9MP:332)

9. Inequality IS central • WDR 2006 • need for trickle up, not trickle down • Malaysia’s1990s record; Singapore’s recent record • makes it urgent • Footnote to Malaysia MDG report

10. Falling in between the cracks

11. Vulnerable Groups • Small vulnerable “indigenous”, in this instance, Penan (< 1% of population) • Late-comers to development • Women • Elderly -- although recognized that elderly-headed households have a very high poverty rate, at 23% (8MP:58), in Sarawak, complicated by pattern of aging populations • Female-headed households -- also recognised, poverty rate 17% (ibid.) • Others

12. Example 1: Measles • Dec 04/Jan 05: major outbreak of measles amongst Penan in Lg Urun, Belaga • fatalities amongst under-15’s amounted to 15-20% of the age cohort: our own tsunami • No indications that any Penan in affected area had been vaccinated -- for anything (no BCG scar) • Vaccination rate for measles, under-1s • country: 95% (2004) (ADB KIs) • state: 93% (2001) (Sarawak Medical Dept)

13. Indicator looks good, but… • Can achieve well-near universal coverage and stellar results, yet miss out a whole population • obvious, yet often overlooked…until it imposes itself on our consciousness • need for: • (a) universal policies to reach the poor • (b) appropriate targeted policies to reach specific populations (no ‘one size fits all’)

14. Example 2: Malaria Source: Sarawak Medical Dept

15. Nutrition Status, av 2000-03 Source: Sarawak Health Dept

16. Source: Sarawak Medical Dept

17. Supplementary • Public health services may be largely free • but significant out-of-pocket payments to access them • transport costs for rural average RM7, and needed average >1 hr travel time (NHMS II) • assuming transport is available • Catch-22 situations: can get transport to health facility if seriously ill, not if healthy • but immunization only if child is healthy

18. Example 3: Primary Education • Malaysia, incl Sarawak, exemplary • evidence of benefit of free, universal, publicly provided service, with substantial additional subsidies • But…

19. No Schooling (2000)

20. Better Communication • Example: Group of Penan at SK Lg Urun end 2005 • info conveyed to eldest to go to Belaga in 2006; probably to SMK • understood by parents as a global transfer • couldn’t get/afford transport; RM10 by express • none attended school 2006

21. Better Coordination • Example: SMK Sg Asap • by February 06, attendance dropped to region of 70+% (anecdotal, from teachers) • shared building/facilities with SK • no boarding facilities • those further away incurred transport costs of RM2/day per capita (previously to Belaga, RM50/semester per capita) • Previous data (up to 2000) indicate 10-30% attrition rates P6-F1; another 10-20% F1-F3

22. More I-C Issues • Identity Cards • e.g., in one longhouse of 40 doors, only a handful have IC’s • Service Centre • e.g., in one locale, after 20 years, still in-the-making

23. And one more I-C matter Survey of 7 longhouses in Asap ResettlementOct 2001 Source: M.J. Cardosa, Inst of Health & Community Medicine, UNIMAS

24. Example 4: Plantations • Plantation development as policy • good for state GDP, but what about • social/economic impacts • environmental impacts -- coordination issues; impact on other development • only mention that one forest conversion affects the catchment of the Murum and Linau rivers, 3 major tributaries of the Balui, just above the Bakun Dam; no EIA, not to mention SIA

25. Social & Economic • Employment: foreign • indicator: • Niah-Suai subdistrict 2000: 21% foreign • Sebauh 2000: 16% • Beluru 2000: 10% • Sarawak 2000: 3% • Salaries & wages: • 2003: RM6,500 p.a. = RM540 p.m. (MTR 8MP) • <<HH PLI, i.e., need at least 2 income earners per HH

26. Livelihoods • Aside from usual disputes, Penan are affected by: • No formal recognition of customary rights in land • Forest conversion implies loss of recognised customary rights to land/forest • Practice of informal recognition abandoned • Even if resumed, and “New Concept” adopted, still a recipe for poverty/low-income status, exacerbated by full monetization of local economy • Only options? • plantation labour • cat-and-mouse • re-locate, but where?

27. Inequality • Brief look, from Census 2000 data • through tertiary education • through occupation • MASCO ’98 correlates well with education and income

28. Tertiary Attainment, 2000 Source: Census 2000

29. Occupation 15-64, 2000 Source: Census 2000

30. National Level Provision Source: calculated from various MPs

31. Challenge • “Bringing into the mainstream” is correct, but cannot simply be on basis of “here’s the development; now swim or sink” • Not especially with “indigenous peoples” with cultures quite different from that of the market • Not via de facto dispossession/dislocation • Not by undermining tenuous social capital and social economy without adequate replacement • Not without accompanying, even special, policies & programmes • to resolve property rights, build capacities, build infrastructure, provide credit, improve access to existing facilities & programmes, etc.