New approach needed to tackle poverty

I am not anti-poor, but I think we need a new approach and mindset in the way we tackle poverty.

I am referring to Anwar Ibrahim’s request for additional allocations and funding for farmers, fishermen and livestock breeders which the finance minister has approved. I agree that in the interim, we may need to do this, but I don’t think that this is the be-all and end-all solution.

I have also heard of targeted assistance for taxi drivers, rubber tappers, hawkers and other low wage earners, in addition to the bantuan sara hidup formerly known as BR1M and other subsidies for the poor. As a nation, we have been targeting the so-called poor for as long as I can remember, to no avail.

I would expect the new government to change its approach but apparently the mindset is still very much the same: we still indulge in endless micromanaging and sectoral assistance for the purported target groups. Soon, another group of car and motorbike owners will emerge as recipients of special assistance.

Why is it that for some occupations and professions, people who work full-time are unable to earn a decent living? I think this is the fundamental question which our economic and strategic planners must answer.

Is it true that fishermen, farmers, rubber tappers and livestock breeders must remain poor? If so, why do they become and remain as such?

A common argument is that they have no choice because they lack skills and education. But again, is this true? To me, farming, fishing and livestock breeding require a lot of skill and experience. Why can’t they earn just like other professions do, if not more? Surely we need to explore the matter further. Do they work full-time, diligently and productively?

Another argument is that fishermen and farmers are generally exploited by middlemen. Yes, I heard of this when I was very young, and I am now growing very old. Over time, we set up Fama, Majuikan and other agencies in an attempt to circumvent exploitation. Do we know how effective these agencies have been?

Everything has changed in the last 40 to 50 years, from exposure and communication to transportation and financing. I might understand if fishermen and farmers faced difficulties in marketing their products 50 years ago due to lack of market access, communication and transportation.

But I can’t comprehend why and how fishermen and farmers remain poor and dependent today. If they perform a useful economic function, the market mechanism should be able to adequately compensate them. Why must the government pay them to be fishermen and farmers, albeit poor ones?

I’m sorry, I don’t think we want to look at poverty the way Prof Ungku Aziz looked at it 50 years ago. Even if poverty remains today, the approach we take should be different.

As a nation, we have been spending too much time dispensing assistance and subsidies to endless target groups instead of formulating and implementing strategies to correct distortions and grow the economy.

TK Chua is an FMT reader.