A deal for rubber planters in Sarawak

0

IMPROVING INCOMES: This is the rod with which to catch the fish.

APART from politics, much of it petty, among the hot topics that rural people in Sarawak talk about today are the next round of cash handouts (BR1M) and the financial assistance given by the Rubber Industry Smallholders Development Authority (Risda).

Two years ago, BR1M was first intended to be an one-off payment to help Malaysian families which earn a combined monthly income of less than RM3,000. Before the last federal election, it was given out again, and because it was a vote-winning strategy by the ruling party, it is likely that there will be a third one-off payment.

That’s the fish, cleaned and fried, ready for the table.

The other topic is the money given by Risda.

Under its Replanting Scheme, rubber planters in the state have been encouraged to apply for financial assistance for replanting of rubber on the existing holdings or on empty or idle land, which must not exceed 40.46ha or 100 acres per applicant.

For each hectare there is a grant of RM13,500, released in stages over five years.

That’s the fishing rod. It requires more physical effort and lots of sweat in order to get that fish on the table.

That’s a better policy really.

Since it set foot in Sarawak in 2009, Risda has benefited almost 4,000 smallholders by giving financial grants with which to replant high yielding trees.

Development of NCR land?

However, the news this week about Risda intending to develop NCR land for rubber next year is new.

Apparently a popular move among the farmers with land under title, but those of them without a document to show ownership of land have been left out. And there are more farmers in Sarawak than there are those in possession of ownership papers. These are the Natives claiming rights over land acquired by virtue of custom.

What has been done for or about them?

I think Risda has realised that a lot of people who need help have not been benefiting from their programme. Hence the attempt to help those farmers without land title or those NCR landowners.

Question: Native Communal Reserve land or Native Customary Rights land?

I’m being curious and interested to know how Risda would go about developing the NCR land on a mere ‘endorsement’ by the Land and Survey department. Which land are we talking about here – land surveyed under Section 6 of the Land Code, 1958, which is a native communal reserve, or land issued with title under Section 18, or that ‘settled’ under Part V of the Code or the type commonly referred to as NCR (Native Customary Rights) land?

The authorities concerned must make some clarification on the status of land to be developed under their scheme. As Macbeth famously tried to figure out: which witch is which witch?

The Land Code 1958 Edition (incorporating all amendments and modifications up to 1.1. 1999) clearly states “rights in any land declared to be a Native Communal Reserve shall continue to be State land”. Is this the land earmarked for development by Risda next year?

Or is it the land classified as Native Customary Rights land?

Pending clarification, we should welcome the gesture to develop land for agriculture and for any useful purpose. No one in his right mind rejects development.

Good arable land is getting scarce in the state as more and more of it is used for crops such as oil palm. In many parts of the interior the terrain is simply not good for large scale plantations, just small-scale rubber gardens.

Compounding the physical constraints, there are the technical problems of land usage for the purpose of raising capital. A lot of money is needed if a big-scale development is envisaged. To get this kind of money, borrowing is the normal practice. The land title is the collateral for the security of the loan. Except for land classified as Mixed Zone, other types of land owned and occupied by the Natives are practically useless for obtaining loans.

So the asset is idle. That means a lot of land owned by the Natives is idle.

Nevertheless, efforts have been made to develop this type of land and in many cases have been successful through a device by which the constraints posed by Native subject to customary rights land have been circumvented. Salcra is a good example of a statutory body which has successfully developed land encumbered by native customary rights. LCDA is another. And now Risda, if the answer to my query is positive. If not, Risda will not be of benefit to the Natives in Sarawak who have no land under title. There goes another bus without the poor Natives on board in terms of income generation.

Suggestion

While Risda is working on the mechanics or concept of development of NCR – Native Communal Reserve or Native Customary Rights land – let me suggest a short cut: the State Government should create another statutory body for the purpose of developing Native Customary Rights land for rubber by applying the concept of development. Under Salcra the native customary rights over land are recognised and whenever a survey is carried out over the holding(s) of each participant of a scheme that land is given an individual title under Section 18 of the Land Code, free of premium and in perpetuity.

In fact, Salcra can do the job of development of rubber as well as oil palm as hinted by the Chief Minister recently; so can LCDA, but if funds are available, it would be good to have another state-based statutory body to specialise in rubber in addition to Risda.

Risda money can be given to Sarawak for the purpose of rubber development, channelled through the existing organisations or to the new state statutory body that I propose above.

Rubber Cess fund

While in government service years ago, I used to hear about the existence of the Rubber Cess Fund Board.

Is it in order to suggest that this is another source of money for rubber development in the state? By now there must be quite a sizeable hoard. If I’m not mistaken, the fund was under the watch of the director of agriculture. Please let the rubber planters and rubber dealers know how much money is in the kitty now. I claim the right to ask such a silly question because I used to tap rubber and sell the sheets during school holidays. Some of the small change in that fund was contributed by me!

Comments can reach the writer via [email protected].