Be as cooperative as the bees

JUDGING by a number of recent statements made by government officials and people involved in the production of honey from stingless bees, there appears to be a revival of interest in the co-operative movement in the state.

I consider that interest a revival because for the past decade or so, not much has been reported about the progress of the movement in this state, considering that the principle of co-operatives, ‘One for All and All for One’, was introduced by the colonial government of Sarawak in 1948.

I’m all for it – I mean, for the revival of interest as well as for the motto itself. I hope that this interest will be sustained for a long time, be it a co-operative society for the production of honey from stingless bees or for planting of oil palms, or even of marketing durians to China. The point is that an economic project must be viable and sustainable as long as possible for it to be worth the effort of the entrepreneur.

For such a long time, there has been so little news about co-operatives in the state that no one really knows if these societies are, as the Malay saying goes, ‘Hidup segan mati tak mahu’. Or the opposite: alive and kicking.

Does anybody know where to find the Co-operatives Commission of Malaysia (previously Co-operatives Development Department) in Sarawak; if you want to register a co-operative society, do you know how to go about it?

Political economy

The co-operative movement is not new to Sarawak; 70 years ago it was introduced here about the same time when the government introduced the Local Authorities in preparation for Sarawak gaining political independence eventually, in accordance with the provision of the Sarawak Constitution 1941.

This twin-approach by the colonial government was considered a practicable policy for a new colony; if sustained long enough without interruption by major disasters such as wars or natural disasters, the two-pronged approach in economic development planning should be able to provide a firm ground for a viable democratic government for Sarawak as envisaged in its Constitution 1941.

The co-operative movement was used as a platform for an organised economic plan for all people using the principle, ‘One for All and All for One’. The local government elections were intended to educate people to choose their leaders at the grassroots level.

In fact, the colonial government was balanced in its politico-economic policy.

The co-operative movement

For the time being, forget about the local government. We’ll talk about the other arm of development – the Co-Operative Movement, its history. Maybe we can learn something from the early efforts of the government’s economic development plan for Sarawak after the end of the Second World War.

The Co-operative Department had its own five-year plan, which constituted a major part of the government’s economic policy for the colony at the time. In the Sarawak Annual Report, 1951, there was a progress report on all the co-operatives that had been registered.

The main complaint was the shortage of staff in the department in Kuching and of supervisors at the district levels where the department operated.

Nevertheless, the government managed to register co-operatives in a number of districts. The government ensured that as many people as possible, in the urban as well as in the rural areas, would benefit from the economic activities provided by the co-operatives with diverse purposes or specialities as their names suggest: Thrift and Credit Societies [Rural Credit Societies (including those accepting padi and not money deposits); Thrift Societies (Rural Savings Societies);  Urban Thrift and Loan Societies; Consumer Societies (Stores); Hostel Society (a Secondary Society formed by Saribas Co-operatives)]. Other societies were formed by various groups, such as the Chinese Fishermen’s Society, Chinese Sea Transport Society, Chinese Farming Society, Dayak Farming Society, and a Malay Cattle Farming Society.

Over a period of only three years, some 79 societies of all descriptions had been registered.

I wish someone would tell us if some of these old societies are still active today. The commission may have full records of them – reports of their successes and failures.

If we want to revisit co-operatives at all in Sarawak, we must be able to find out why certain co-operatives have succeeded while others have not. There may be lessons for anyone planning to start a co-operative society – what mistakes or pitfalls to avoid, what good practices to adopt, etc.

Or one may ask this question: Is the co-operative movement still relevant or suitable for the Sarawak of today? The Co-operative College of Malaysia may have that answer.

I used to run a multipurpose store at Merindun, Lubok Antu, in the 1970s. It was a successful outfit because it monopolised the market, the Salcra scheme participants being the owners and shareholders. I don’t know what the situation is now.

I used to be a member of the Sarawak Co-operative Bank, a loaning co-operative society really. I have not heard about it for years.

In theory, a co-operative – like any other economic undertaking – can be successful if properly managed. The main problem has been one of bookkeeping. Solve that one problem and any co-operative venture may succeed.

Benefits

The Sarawak Annual Report 1951 envisioned the possible benefits for the members of the various co-operatives.

Visualise for yourself how the then government motivated people to improve their economic wellbeing. It states, through the report, “As a member of a Rural Credit Society he has savings to his credit in the Society, probably short term loans are available, and he has benefited by the purchase of goods at reasonable prices through his Society’s bulk purchasing organisation; if he is a member of a Savings (money) Society he has funds in deposits for his future use; if he belongs to a Padi Savings Society he is assured of a reserve of food and probably has deposits of money standing to his credit in the Society’s books, derived from the bulk sale of padi stocks; if he is a member of a Padi Milling Society he has obtained a service which has released his women-folk for work in the fields with him, he holds valuable milling done at cost price to the Society since it has been policy in these Societies to aim at recovery of capital outlay in three years; if he is a member of a rural Co-operative Store he has obtained a service previously denied him and has saved money, and the capital value of his store remains in the village; and the members of the one and only Padi Farming Society are now firmly established on good farming land for the first time …”

The report sums up, “Wherever a Co-operative has been established the members are better off materially and have something put aside for the future …

“But there is no gainsaying the fact that the total number of members of such Societies is as yet only a minute proportion of the rural population of Sarawak, and therefore, Co-operation has not yet conferred much benefit upon the people as a whole.”

This was the situation of the co-operative movement so many years ago. I’m told that in the state there are some 1,000 registered societies of all descriptions with a combined membership of 320,000 and some RM550 million worth of assets.

This is a far cry from 79 societies, 70 years ago.

It seems that they have been accumulating assets all this while – silently. But why hide the candle under the bushel if there are success stories to tell?

The co-operative movement in Sarawak had even a monthly bulletin of its own called ‘Co-operation in Sarawak’ in English-Malay-Iban.

Have I seen any similar publication today? No, I haven’t.

Comments can reach the writer via [email protected].