One for all, all for one

SOMETHING like that.

Sources from the Dewan Rakyat have disclosed that there would be a new policy for the Co-Operative Movement.

MORE EXPENSIVE: The recent cuts on subsidies have meant that the prices of sugar, petrol and gas have gone up.

Good news: co-operative societies will be allowed to get involved in business ventures from agriculture-related trade to tourism. That’s a far cry from the days when each co-operative store could only cater to the basic needs of its own members and was restricted to invest in some other ventures, however viable and lucrative.

There was a successful co-operative society at Merindun Oil Palm scheme in Lubok Antu in 1976. Started and run by the Salcra scheme management, its activities were confined to providing the scheme participants and the staff with the basic foodstuff.

As it was a monopoly, it made money for its shareholders who were mostly the scheme participants but when an enterprising scheme participant named Saba opened a village shop next door, the co-operative met with stiff competition.

Without those constraints, the co-op could have set a good example of how a poor community could be viable economically if given the chance to change. For instance, the store could have been an agent to sell fertilisers and chemicals for use by the plantation.

That was long time ago and I have not heard about the society since I moved to new pastures.

With the announcement of a change in the policy, it appears that the spirit of ‘One For All and All For One’ may be back. We are told that the federal government has earmarked funds for Sarawak to revive or start new co-operatives in the state.

The importance of the co-operative movement cannot be overemphasised; as it was in the beginning and is now, it is a consumer movement: to educate consumers how to run a business using their own resources for their own benefit without going through middle men all the time, thus avoiding price exploitation and cartel.

Colonial vestige
In 1949, the Colonial government created a department to encourage Sarawakians, especially those in the rural areas, to organise themselves into economically viable communities. A group in a locality coughed out their money into a fund and when there was enough capital to start one co-operative, the shareholders approached the department’s representative or supervisor in certain districts for advice and registration of their society.

The most important input from the department was the audit service provided to each and every co-operative for free. Nothing caused the treasurer of a co-operative store many a sleepless night more than the impending visit of the auditors from the department.

Two broad categories of co-operatives were encouraged: urban co-operatives and rural co-operatives and each and every society would confine its activities to what was laid down by the department according to its own rules and regulations.

Co-operatives with various names and functions were formed. For instance, the Rural Credit Societies, Urban Thrift and Loan Societies. Chinese society of fishermen, even a hostel society formed by Saribas co-operatives, to mention a few. In Kuching a co-operative bank dished out small loans to members of co-operatives. Its building is still there at Ban Hock Road.

Community development

Co-operatives, if properly managed, could create a progressive and economically viable community or group of people. For instance, the constabulary co-operative was formed for the police in Kuching — a success story and the present Kopodim was born out of it, I think.

Teething problems were many; a number of societies fizzled out for lack of proper management while others survived like the Serian co-operative despite difficulties. Survival of each society depends on the quality of its members and those managing it, plus the spirit of ‘One for All, All for One’.

Until recently there was practically no news about how the surviving co-operatives are faring. Newspaper stringers anchored at various districts should find out; there may be a story of human interest to write about. Go and see officials of the department in Kuching and find out their plans for the future.

It is assumed that the Ministry of Rural Development has made a study of how and why many societies failed. During the Colonial times, the common complaints were that there were not enough supervisors and travelling was a nightmare for those officers looking after so many co-operatives throughout the country. Now with the improvement in road and air communications and the emails and more money for staff salaries, the logistical and financial problems would not be as great as they were 50 years ago.

Will co-operatives help?

Just before I left for Australia, prices of sugar, petrol and gas went up as predicted. Hopefully, cuts on the subsidies on these goods, will reduce the costs to run the government. The poor customers have a raw deal in this exercise — the further they are from the cities the more expensive those things are. That’s a fact of life.

As measures must be found to minimise the impact of the price increases, perhaps, co-operatives may be an answer. The co-operatives buy goods in bulk and sell those to their members or shareholders. Unfortunately, not all districts or bazaars have a co-operative store at the moment.

One example of how co-operatives could stabilise prices in the open market was the situation in 1951 in Kuching. When the Kuching Co-operative Store Society commenced business competing with the local shopkeepers “there was a marked effect upon prices in the town. The wild fluctuations in the retail prices of essential commodities began to disappear and the society’s prices began to be accepted as the market prices of goods, whether the latter were in short demand or not.” (Sarawak Annual Report, 1951).

It seems that co-operatives could provide a solution to these rising prices of consumer goods. Unfortunately, co-operatives cannot be formed all over Sarawak overnight. Those that exist or hardly exist may be rescued as soon as possible, before the poor people begin to sulk.

Why did we not sustain the co-operative movement since the formation of Malaysia?

We were going all out to become a full-fledged capitalistic economy like the US, allowing ourselves unrestrained laisser-faire to govern our daily lives. That’s why.

However, rest assured that the authorities will somehow find a solution and produce some measures with which to lessen the burden of rising consumer prices on the poor.

We know there are so many of these programmes ranging from outright grants to fishermen to micro-credit schemes, just that they are not being implemented as fast as we would like them to be implemented on the ground. Bureaucracy grinds slowly. We can assume that there exists a lab to see how this service can be improved.

The long explanation why the subsidies on sugar had to be cut to reduce incidences of diabetes and obesity is just a sweetener. Does it mean that all this while the government did not care about this problem of sugar intake among the population until now? There are other reasons, obviously.

When the announcement was made a month ago that there would be cuts on subsidies, we were assured there would be mitigation measures at the same time. We were told about rebates on purchases and even cash in lieu of rebates. But we have not been told how the rebates or the cash is to be administered in practice.

Maybe someone should explain how this can be done assuming government has the list of eligible people who need help through the mitigation measures.

We will see how we can give them help.