i

The Impact of Government-Sponsored Poverty Eradication Programmes in Lundu District,

Kuching Division, Sarawak

STEPHANIE LIM YUAN JIUN

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Social Sciences

Faculty of Social Sciences

UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA SARAWAK

ii

AUTHOR’S DECLARATION

I declare that the work in this thesis was carried out in accordance with the regulations of

Universiti Malaysia Sarawak. It is original and is the result of my work, unless otherwise

indicated or acknowledged as referenced work. This thesis has not been submitted at

Universiti Malaysia Sarawak or to any other academic institution or non-academic institution

for any other degree or qualification.

Name of Student : Stephanie Lim Yuan Jiun

Student ID No : 11021801

Programme Degree : Degree of Master of Social Sciences

Faculty : Faculty of Social Sciences

Thesis Title : The Impact of Government-Sponsored Poverty Eradication

Programmes in Lundu District, Kuching Division, Sarawak

Signature of Student :

Date :

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my profound gratitude to Dr Wong Swee Kiong and Assoc. Prof. Dr

Gusni Saat, my research supervisors, for their patient guidance, enthusiastic encouragement

and useful critiques of this research work. Their willingness to give their time so generously is

very much appreciated. My grateful thanks are also extended to Universiti Malaysia Sarawak

(UNIMAS) for the financial support of Vice-Chancellor Zamalah Research Award (Zamalah

Penyelidikan Naib Canselor (ZPNC)). I would also like to thank all the respondents in this

study as well as officers from relevant agencies. These include Lundu District Office,

Sematan Fishermen Association, Fisheries Development Authority of Malaysia, Department

of Social Welfare Sarawak, Lundu Department of Social Welfare, Department of Agriculture

Sarawak, Lundu Department of Agriculture, State Planning Unit and Prime Minister

Department, without them this thesis would not have been possible. Last but not least, I wish

to thank my friends and family members for their moral supports and encouragement

throughout my study.

iv

ABSTRACT

Lundu, the study area of this study, shows a continuous increase in the number of hardcore

poor even though various types of government-sponsored poverty eradication programmes

have been implemented. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of government

sponsored poverty eradication programmes in Lundu in terms of income, house conditions,

health, and literacy status. This study also aims to access the process of implementing

government-sponsored poverty eradication programmes in Lundu. Out of 2,961 total

population, 150 heads of the households were selected as respondents by using a stratified

random sampling technique. Face-to-face interviews with the respondents as well as with the

officers-in-charge from the relevant department were carried out to collect the data and related

to poverty eradication programmes in this study. The result shows a failure of policy and

practice in the government-sponsored poverty eradication programmes. This is because the

implementation of this government-sponsored poverty eradication programmes were short

term in nature and creating spoon-fed dependent rural poor rather than emphasizing on

empowerment when assisting the poor. Policy makers should emphasise on enhancing the

knowledge of the poor in basic financial management and acquaint them with relevant skills

which are related to their economic activities. This is to ensure that the poor are able to

experience capital expansion and achieve self-sustainability as well as independence instead

of depending on the assistances given by the government which only provide them with short

term relief.

v

ABSTRAK

Lundu, kawasan kajian ini telah menunjukkan peningkatan bilangan miskin tegar yang secara

berterusan tahun demi tahun walaupun pelbagai program pembasmian kemiskinan telah

dilaksanakan oleh kerajaan. Objektif kajian ini adalah untuk mengenal pasti impak program

pembasmian kemiskinan yang dilaksanakan oleh kerajaan di Lundu dari segi pendapatan,

keadaan rumah, tahap kesihatan dan status literasi penerima pelbagai jenis bantuan

daripada kerajaan. Kajian ini juga bertujuan untuk mengkaji proses pelaksanaann bantuan-

bantuan yang telah disediakan oleh kerajaan. Sebanyak 150 responden daripada jumlah

populasi seramai 2,961 penerima pelbagai jenis bantuan kerajaan telah dipilih sebagai

sampel kajian ini melalui kaedah persampelan rawak berstrata. Segala sumber maklumat

dalam kajian ini baik sumber primer daripada temubual secara bersemuka dengan responden

dan pegawai-pegawai daripada agensi-agensi kerajaan yang terlibat dalam usaha

pembasmian kemiskinan di Lundu mahupun sumber sekunder yang diperolehi daripada

jabatan yang berkenaan akan digunakan untuk analisis kajian ini. Dapatan kajian

menunjukkan bahawa terdapat kegagalan polisi dan strategi dalam program pembasmian

kemiskinan yang ditajakan oleh pihak kerajaan Malaysia. Puncanya adalah disebabkan oleh

pelaksanaan program pembasmian kemiskian yang dilaksana oleh kerajaan hanya berbentuk

jangka pendek dan membentuk golongan miskin yang bergantung sepenuhnya (“spoon-fed”)

kepada kerajaan. Pembuat dasar harus menekankan kepada peningkatan pengetahuan

kemahiran pengurusan kewangan dan menyediakan golongan miskin kemahiran yang

berkenaan dengan aktiviti ekonomi yang dijalankan oleh mereka. Ini adalah untuk

memastikan bahawa golongan miskin dapat mencapai perkembangan kapital serta dapat

berdikari demi mencapai kemampanan tanpa bergantung sepenuhnya kepada bantuan

kerajaan yang hanya membawa kelegaan jangka pendek.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

AUTHOR’S DECLARATION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

ABSTRACT

ABSTRAK

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 An Overview

1.2 Research Setting

1.3 Problem Statement

1.4 Research Objectives

1.5 Significance of the Study

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Economic Growth & Poverty

2.2 Malaysia Poverty Line Income (PLI)

2.3 Indicator of Poverty

2.4 Affirmative Action in Reducing

Poverty

2.5 Limitation of Affirmative Action

Programme

2.6 The Challenges

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Population & Sample

3.3 Survey Instrument

3.4 Data Collection

3.5 Data Analysis

Pages

ii

iv

v

vi

viii

x

xii

1

6

7

10

11

13

15

16

20

25

28

31

31

35

37

39

vii

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction

4.2 The Implementation Process of

Poverty Eradication Programmes

4.3 The Demography Characteristic of

the Respondents

4.4 Beneficiaries – Agency Relations

4.5 The Impact of Government-

Sponsored Poverty Eradication

Programmes in Lundu

4.5.1 The Impact on Household

Monthly Income

4.5.2 Impact of Income Generating

Assistances & Welfare

Assistances on Household

Income

4.6 The Impact on the Expenditure

4.7 The Impact on the Housing

Condition

4.7.1 Types of Income Generating

Assistance & Its Impact on

housing conditions

4.7.2 Types of Welfare Assistance

&Its Impact on housing

conditions

4.8 Health Condition of the Respondents

4.9 The Impact of Government-

Sponsored Poverty Eradication

Programmes on the Literacy of the

Respondents

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary

5.2 Conclusion

5.3 Policy Implication

5.4 Limitation of the Study

5.5 Recommendation for Future Study

REFERENCES

APPENDIX A INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR

RESPONDENTS

APPENDIX B POVERTY STATISTIC

APPENDIX C PICTURE TAKEN DURING THE

SURVEY

41

42

51

58

71

71

74

84

93

96

106

119

123

131

135

138

142

145

147

158

172

174

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.3.1 Status of eKasih applicants in Lundu from

December 2011 to May 2014

Table 2.2.1 Poverty Line Income 2012 (Ringgit Malaysia

per Month)

Table 2.2.2 Low Income Groups and their Monthly

Household Income in 2010

Table 3.2.1 Number of Sample Selected by using

Stratified Random Sampling Method

Table 4.2.1 Income Generating Assistance in Lundu

Table 4.2.2 Welfare Assistance in Lundu

Table 4.3.1 Demographic Information of the

Respondents

Table 4.4.1 Types of Assistance Received by the

Respondents of the various Poverty

Eradication Programmes

Table 4.5.1 Income Generating Assistances and Impact

on Household Income

Table 4.5.2 The Impact of Poverty Eradication

Programmes on Household Monthly Income

Table 4.5.3 Comparison of Average Monthly Household

Income of Respondents Before and After

Received Income Generating Assistance

Table 4.5.4 Comparison of Monthly Household Income

of the Respondents of Welfare Assistance

Table 4.6.1 Comparison of Monthly Household

Expenditure of Respondents Before and

After Receiving the Assistances.

Table 4.6.2 Expenditure before/after Received Income

Generating Assistances

8

16

16

34

44

45

52

62

73

74

79

83

84

89

ix

Table 4.6.3 Expenditure before/after Received Welfare

Assistances

Table 4.7.1 The Impact on the Housing Condition of

the Respondents

Table 4.7.2 Types of Income Generating Assistance and

Its Impact on the Housing condition

Table 4.7.3 Types of Welfare Assistance and Its Impact

of Housing Condition

Table 4.7.4 The Impact on Assets Ownership of the

Respondents

Table 4.7.5 Comparison of Types of Poverty Eradication

programmes on Asset Ownership of the

Respondents

Table 4.8.1 The Health Condition of the Respondents

Table 4.8.2 Frequency of the Respondents to go for

Hospital Treatment per Year

Table 4.9.1 The Impact of Poverty Eradication

Programmes on Education Status of the

Respondents

Table 4.9.2 The Literacy Status of the Respondents in

Lundu

Table 4.9.3 The Impact on the Literacy Status and

Education Status of the Respondents

91

95

100

109

114

116

119

122

125

125

128

x

LIST OF FIGURE

Figure 1.3.1 Poverty Statistics by District in Kuching

Division from 2009 to 2012

Figure 1.3.2 Trajectory of eKasih in Lundu

Figure 3.4.1 Sources of Information Gathered through

Data Triangulation Method

Figure 4.2.1 Implementation Process of 1AZAM and

Housing Assistance Programme

Figure 4.2.2 Implementation Process in Department of

Social Welfare

Figure 4.2.3 Implementation Process in Fisheries

Authority Development (LKIM)

Figure 4.3.1 Types of Assistance by Working Status

Figure 4.3.2 Distribution of Respondents by Types of

Assistance and Work Sector

Figure 4.3.3 Distribution of Respondents by Types of

Assistance based on Primary Occupation

Figure 4.3.4 Distribution of Respondents by Types of

Assistance based on Secondary Occupation

Figure 4.3.5 Distribution of Respondents by Monthly

Household Income and Types of Assistance

Figure 4.3.6 Distribution of Respondents by Types of

Assistance and House Ownership

Figure 4.3.7 Distribution of Respondents by Types of

Assistance and Number of School-going

Children

Figure 4.4.1 Numbers of Years Respondents Receiving

Government-Sponsored Assistance

Figure 4.4.2 Waiting Time for Delivery of the Assistance

among the Respondents

9

9

38

50

50

50

53

54

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

xi

Figure 4.4.3 Ways Respondents Know About the

Assistance

61

Figure 4.4.4 Percentage of Respondents Facing Problem 65

when Applying for Assistance

Figure 4.4.5 Types of Problem Faced after Receiving the 68

Assistance by the Respondents

Figure 4.4.6 Respondents’ Perception on the Assistance Received 70

xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1AZAM Akhiri Zaman Miskin

AIM Amanah Ikthiar Malaysia

ADB Asian Development Bank

ASB-PBRT Amanah Saham National Berhad-Development Programmes for the Poorest

BA Bantuan Am (General Assistance)

BIRM Banci Isi Rumah Miskin (Poor Household Survey)

BKK Bantuan Kanak-Kanak (Children Financial Assistance)

BOT Bantuan Orang Tua (Senior Citizen Assistance)

BRAC Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee

BTB Bantuan Orang Kurang Upaya (OKU) yang Tidak Berupaya Bekerja

(Financial Assistance for Disabled who are Unable to Work)

BPT Bantuan Penjagaan Orang Kurang Upaya (OKU) Terlantar/ Pesakit Kronik

Terlantar (Financial Assistance for Chronic Bedridden Patients/Bedridden

Disabled Patient)

CCT Conditional Cash Transfer

CGAP Consultative Group to Assist the Poor

DOA Department of Agriculture

DOF Department of Fisheries

EPC Elaun Pekerja Cacat (Incentive Allowance for Disabled Workers)

EPU Economic Planning Unit

FA Fishermen Association

FELCRA Federal Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation Authority

FELDA Federal Land Development Authority

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GNI Gross National Income

xiii

GTP Government Transformation Programmes

HADP Hill Area Development Programmes

IADPs Integrated Agricultural Development Projects

ICT Information and Communication Technology

ICU Implementation and Coordination Unit

ILO International Labour Organization

IMF International Monetary Fund

IRDP Integrated Rural Development Programmes

JKM Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat (Department of Social Welfare)

JPKDL Jawatankuasa Pembasmian Kemiskinan Daerah Lundu (Lundu Poverty

Eradication Committee)

JTK Jabatan Tenaga Kerja (Department of Labour)

KKLW Kementerian Kemajuan Luar Bandar dan Wilayah (Ministry of Rural and

Regional Development)

LKIM Lembaga Kemajuan Ikan Malaysia (Fisheries Development Authority of

Malaysia)

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

MFO Microfinance Organization

NCR Native Customary Rights

NDP New Development Policy

NEP New Economic Policy

NGOs Non Government Organizations

NKRAs National Key Result Areas

NREP National Rural Employment Programmes

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

PBRT Program Bantuan Rumah Termiskin (Housing Assistance Programme)

PPRT Program Pembangunan Rakyat Termiskin

(Development Programmes for the Poorest)

xiv

PEMANDU Performance Management and Delivery Unit

PLI Poverty Line Income

PLKK Program Latihan Kemahiran dan Kerjaya (Skills Training and Career

Programme)

PPMI Program Pembangunan Minda Insan (Mindset Development Programme)

PPP Program Peningkatan Pendapatan (Income Increment Programme)

SBPKP Skim Baja Padi Kerajaan Persekutuan (Federal Government Paddy Fertilizer

Scheme)

SBEU Sarawak Bank Employees’ Union

SDO State Development Office

SERU Social Science and Economic Research Unit

SEDC Sarawak Economic Development Corporation

SNEP Skim Pinjaman Nelayan Pantai (Costal Fishermen Loan Scheme)

SPKR Skim Pembangunan Kesejahteraan Rakyat (Citizens' Welfare Development

Scheme Programme)

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences

SPU State Planning Unit

UFLP Universal Automatic Computer (UNIVAC) Functional Literacy Programme

UNESCO United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture

UNCSD United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development

UNIVAC Universal Automatic Computer

UNFPA United Nations Fund for Population Activities

UNDP United Nation Development Programmes

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 An Overview

Poverty is a threat that can bring adverse effects to the society and people. As Hulme (2010,

p.6) once said “Extreme poverty obstructs human flourishing: it means that people are

hungry and live in pain and anguish; it stops children from being educated; it means that

people cannot develop their cognitive and physical capabilities; it allows others to exploit the

labour and the body of the poor; and it makes poor people feel shame and indignity for

conditions they cannot control”. Thus, it is clear that poverty is a threat to the poor as it

prohibits them from receiving education, an important element for human capital formation,

and a crucial element for a country’s social-political and economic development.

Poverty may also lead to social exclusion. Social exclusion is a situation whereby an

individual or group are wholly or partially excluded from full participation in the society in

which they live due to poverty, lack of the basic competencies and learning opportunities

throughout their life or as a result of discrimination (Moisa, 2011). This has become a threat

to the society as social exclusion will lead to apathy, extremism, disenchantment and

inequality among people (Mat Zin, 2009, p. 10). Hence, this can result in conflict which can

affect the peace of a country. This is supported by Brain (2009) who stated that poverty is the

seed of conflict whereby people will react negatively to show their grievances and discontent.

It has also been proven that, poverty, more than any other factor, contributes to the feelings of

alienation, exploitation, and dependency. These feelings in turn contribute to a breakdown of

social cohesion and a move towards violent conflict (Atwood, 2003).

2

Poverty can also lead to global terrorism. Research has shown that countries with low income,

low production efficiency, low life expectancy, as well as high male youth bulge are more

likely to experience political violence, including terrorism (Rice, 2006). This is also supported

by Piazze (2011) who stated that the poor economic status of specific groups within the

population, rather than the overall economic climate, is a crucial element in fuelling terrorist

group recruitment and activities. This is because global terrorist networks may take this

opportunity to use legitimate and illegitimate charities to garner popular support, especially

from the specific groups with poor economic status within the weakened state (Rice, 2006).

This is an unfavourable condition for a country because the involvement of global terrorists

will cause violent conflict between the state and the people. Such activity reinforces poverty.

Poverty is a failure in development. According to Sen (1999, p.3), development requires the

removal of major sources of unfreedom: poverty as well as tyranny, poor economic

opportunities as well as intolerance or over activity of repressive states (Sen, 1999, p.3).

Therefore, poverty eradication programmes play a significant role to not only eradicate the

poverty but also help the country to achieve a balanced socio economic development.

Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) have emerged as the world's time-bound and

quantified targets for addressing extreme poverty in its many dimensions (United Nations

Malaysia, 2009). Eradicating extreme hunger and poor have been set as the first out of the

eight goals in MDGs. In 2000, at the United Nations Millennium Summit, 189 world leaders

adopted the Millennium Declaration and agreed to collective commitments to overcome

poverty through a set of eight mutually reinforcing interrelated time-bound goals (MDGs)

with related targets (UNDP, n.d). Apart from the MDGs, other organisations such as

International Labor Organization (ILO), World Bank as well as the International Monetary

3

Fund (IMF) are also concerned with the issue of poverty eradication by providing different

kinds of assistance to the needy.

The ethnic riot that happened in Malaysia on the 13th of May 1969 is a good example. This

riot happened due to the income inequality within each of the major ethnic groups in

Peninsular Malaysia. Poverty eradication programmes have shown significant impact in

tackling these sorts of issues. The Malaysian government has implemented the New

Economic Policy (NEP) as a strategy to eradicate poverty and restructure economy in order to

achieve national unity and nation building. This shows that poverty eradication programmes

which are tied with growth enhancement policies have become important in national

economic and social policy especially in countries that suffer from population pressures and

deteriorating living and economic conditions (Van de Hoeven and Shorrocks, 2003, p. 172).

In addition, Vision 2020 which was introduced in 1991 by the former Prime Minister of

Malaysia Tun Dr. Mahathir Bin Mohammad also identified fair and equitable distribution of

the wealth of the nation as one of the goals to make Malaysia a fully developed country by

2020. Apart from that, different types of government sponsored poverty eradication

programmes have also been implemented, including the New Economic Policy (NEP) and the

10th Malaysia Plan to eradicate poverty in Malaysia. Non government organisations (NGOs)

have also implemented various initiatives to assist the poor in Malaysia. It is therefore clear

that poverty eradication programmes play a significant role to ensure the inclusion of the poor

in economic growth activities and government development agenda in order to achieve a

balanced social economic development.

4

Malaysian government has successfully decreased the number of poor households from 49.3%

in 1970 to 1.7% in 2012 after implementing various types of poverty eradication programmes

(Malaysian Government, 2013). However, there is still a high rate of poverty in some parts of

Malaysia such as Sabah and Sarawak (Gomez et al., 2013, p.17; EPU, 2011; Aeria, 2013,

p.121).

The poor or the indigenous communities in Sabah and Sarawak are usually less accessible and

may not be amenable to conventional poverty reduction programmes (UNDP and EPU, 2005).

The indigenous communities, who are living in rural areas which are frequently located rather

far away from town, usually do not have access to proper road systems which can connect

their villages to the nearest towns. Gomez et al. (2013, p.10) also stated that infrastructural

support is not present in the rural regions, including those in Sabah and Sarawak because of

the spatial disparities. As a result, the rural communities are isolated from the society and

unable to seek channel to assist them.

In many cases, the poverty eradication programmes are formulated and implemented based on

generalised concepts of the causes of poverty (Burma et al., 2006). The federal policies and

poverty eradication programmes are conceptualised and designed based on the poverty

situation in Peninsular Malaysia (Burma et al., 2006). They may neglect the actual causes of

poverty based on local context. This is especially true in a multi-ethnic society in which

different ethnic groups face different causes of poverty (Burma et al., 2006). Consequently,

the well-being of the poor are unable to be improved drastically, as the needs of the poor are

often addressed with “handouts” by bureaucratic agencies rather than tailored to the wants and

needs of the poor (Varman et. al, 2012 cited in Blocker et. al, 2012). Gomez et al. (2013, p.17)

also mentioned that the Indian and the other ethnic groups in Sabah and Sarawak are

5

sometimes excluded from enjoying benefits gained from the implementation of poverty

eradication programmes by the government, so are the Orang Asli where poverty rates

measure up to 50%.

Furthermore, the poor are often identified based on the information collected through open

registration using structured questionnaires rather than using participatory approach (Burma et

al., 2006). Poor Household Survey (Banci Isi Rumah Miskin (BIRM)) is used in Malaysia to

gather socio-economic information from the applicants of poverty eradication programmes

through face to face interview. In this situation, the actual living condition of the applicants

and their needs may not be captured during the interviews. As a result, the assistances given

by the government may not help the poor to meet their actual and immediate needs.

For instance, new houses with either two or three bedrooms given under the Housing Support

Programme (PBRT) in the Ninth Malaysia Plan (2006-2010) do not take into consideration

the size of the poor families. In some cases, houses with only two or three bedrooms are

unable to accommodate the entire extended family members who are staying together under

one roof (Burma et al., 2006). According to Rusalina (2013, p.265), the PBRT also does not

take into account the lifestyle needs of the Orang Asli as the houses provided are designed

with zinc roof which gets very hot easily and it does not allow for space to have home gardens.

Due to these factors, the poverty eradication programmes are said to fail to improve the

standards of living of the poor. In fact, in some cases, they have worsened the condition of the

poor.

6

1.2 Research Setting

Sarawak is considered as one of the poorest states in East Malaysia. Like other states

throughout the whole Malaysia, various types of poverty eradication programmes have been

implemented by the Malaysian government in Sarawak. Sarawak is divided into eleven

divisions, namely; Kuching, Kota Samarahan, Sri Aman, Betong, Sarikei, Sibu, Mukah,

Bintulu, Kapit, Miri, and Limbang. Kuching is the capital of Sarawak. There are three

districts in Kuching division: Bau, Lundu and Kuching districts. Among these three districts,

Lundu has the second highest poverty rate in Kuching division. Lundu is situated in the south-

western part of Kuching and is bordered by West Kalimantan, Indonesia and covers an area of

1,962.2 square kilometres (Lundu District Council, 2014).

Lundu District has 114 villages and a population of 35,000 (Lundu District Office, 2014). The

largest ethnic group in Lundu district is Bidayuh which includes Bidayuh Jagoi, Selako and

Lara (Lundu District Office, 2014). The ethnic distribution in Lundu is 45% Bidayuh, 28%

Malay, 15% Iban, 10% Chinese, and 2% other ethnic groups (Lundu District Office, 2014).

Even though Lundu is a small district in Kuching division, most of its villages are equipped

with public utilities (water and electricity supply), infrastructure (road, jetty and bridge) and

facilities (school, stadium, hospital and community hall). Lundu is also a tourist attraction

destination because of its natural beauty. Tourist spots in Lundu include Gunung Gading

National Park, Jangkar Waterfall, Sarawak Bank Employees’ Union (SBEU) Retreat Resort,

Siar Beach Resort, Ocean Beach Resort, Pandan Beach as well as Haji Bujang homestay.

7

In terms of socio-economic activities, 80% of the villagers in Lundu are involved in

agricultural related activities such as paddy cultivation, cocoa planting, pepper planting, fruits

planting as well as oil palm planting. Meanwhile, the villagers who stay along the coastal area

work as fishermen (Lundu District Council, 2014).

1.3 Problem Statement

Lundu, the study area of this study, has implemented various types of government-sponsored

poverty eradication programmes to assist the needy. One of the government-sponsored

poverty eradication programmes in Lundu is 1Akhiri Zaman Miskin (1AZAM) programme.

This programme was introduced in the beginning of 2010 to help improve the income among

the poor and hardcore poor living below the poverty line by giving them more job

opportunities. Housing Assistance Programme (PBRT) has also been implemented in Lundu

district, in order to improve the standard of living of the hardcore poor by providing them

with a more comfortable, higher quality and safe residence.

In addition, Department of Agriculture (DOA) Sarawak, with the mission to commercialise

and modernise the agriculture sector in order to improve the incomes of the agricultural

communities (Department of Agriculture Sarawak, 2013), has provided paddy scheme

assistance for the paddy cultivators in Lundu as well. The Department of Social Welfare

(JKM) has the mission to provide quality welfare services for the needy group of people by

providing monthly monetary assistances to the disadvantaged groups in Lundu like single

mothers, the disabled and the senior citizens. Apart from that, the Sematan Fishermen

Association has also provided both monetary and non monetary assistances like cost of living

allowance, petrol subsidies and Coasted Fishermen Loan Scheme to the fishermen to uplift

their economic and social well being.

8

However, Lundu has an increasing number of hardcore poor as compared to other districts in

Kuching division. Figure1.3.1 shows that the number of poor in Lundu has increased

drastically from 2009 to 2012 as compared to other districts in Kuching division. Besides that,

Lundu was the district with the lowest poverty rate in 2009 but it had become the district with

the second highest poverty rate in 2012. Not only that, based on the eKasih system, a

centralised National Poverty Data Bank that stores information related to poverty and helps

the government in planning, implementing and monitoring the poverty eradication

programmes, it shows that the number of hardcore poor had increased from 160 persons in

December 2011 to 370 persons in April 2012 and further increased to 468 persons in Mei

2014 (Lundu District Office, 2014). Furthermore, the overall figures of the hardcore poor in

Lundu had continuously increased from 318 in May 2013 to 512 in October 2013, although

the targeted number of hardcore poor in November 2013 was expected to be zero (Figure

1.3.2). The question now is to what extent has poverty eradication programme improved the

socio-economic well-being of the target beneficiaries in Lundu?

Table 1.3.1: Status of eKasih applicants in Lundu from December 2011 to May 2012

Status/ Date Dec 2011 Jan 2012 Feb 2012 March 2012 April 2012

Hardcore poor 160 159 397 389 379

Poor 931 939 909 928 937

Vulnerable 857 857 748 748 748

Out of Poverty 295 291 244 253 252

Total 2,243 2,246 2,298 2,318 2,316

Source: Lundu District Office, 2014

9

Figure 1.3.1: Poverty Statistics by District in Kuching Division from 2009 to 2012

Source: Implementation Coordination unit, Prime Minister Department, 2012

*Sasaran MT – Initial Target for Hardcore Poor

Pencapaian MT Keseluruhan – Actual Hardcore Poor Status

Pencapaian Locked In – Locked in Achievement

Figure 1.3.2 Trajectory of eKasih in Lundu

Source: Lundu District Office, 2014

10

1.4 Research Objectives

The general objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of poverty eradication

programmes implemented by the government in Lundu, Kuching, Sarawak.

The specific objectives of the study are as follows:

1. To assess the process of implementing government-sponsored poverty eradication

programmes in Lundu district, Kuching, Sarawak; and

2. To analyse their impact in terms of income, housing conditions, health and literacy

status of the project beneficiaries in Lundu district, Kuching, Sarawak.

The focus of this study is specifically on the poverty eradication programmes that have been

implemented by the government in Lundu district. Income, health, housing conditions and

literacy rate are chosen as the indicators of this study because the poor are often deprived of

education, health, infrastructure, accommodation, housing environment and household

economic status. Hence, the changes in the income, health, housing conditions and literacy

among the recipients are significant as indicators to evaluate the impact of poverty eradication

programmes. This study does not identify other impact of the poverty eradication programmes

such as the impact of poverty eradication programmes on social relationship or politics.