EVALUATION OF THE PL 480 TITLE II PROGRAM COUNTRY REPORT: MALAYSIA Submitted to the U. S. Agency for International Development Washington, D. C. February 29, 1972 Checchi and Company 815 Connecticut Avenue, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Section I Background and Setting of PL 480 Title II Programs in Malaysia 1 Section II Food for Peace in Malaysia: The Framework 5 A. Goals of Cooperating Parties 5 B. Project Purposes and Descriptions 6 Section III Title II Operations in Malaysia: Findings and Suggestions 17 A. Mother/Child Feeding and School Feeding 17 B. Economic and Community Development - Food-for-Work 20 C. Adult Institutional Feeding and Health Cases 27 Section IV Food for Peace Central Issues and Problems 29 A. Overall Program Evaluation 29 B. Program Planning and Management 29 SECTION I BACKGROUND AND SETTING OF PL 480 TITLE II PROGRAMS IN MALAYSIA This draft country Evaluation Report is an appraisal of the effec­ tiveness of the PL 480 Title II program in Malysia. It has been prepared for two purposes: (1) to provide descriptive and analytical material for the worldwide evaluation of Title II being conducted by Checchi and Com­ pany for the Agency for International Development; and (2) to provide the U. S. Embassy in Malaysia with the Evaluation Team's observations, findings and suggestions resulting from our three week visit to the country. The study is concerned with programming and management matters, and seeks to determine whether the best attainable results are being achieved through ultilization of Title II foods. Auditing matters are of concern only where they affect program implementation. The multilateral World Food Program falls outside the scope of our assessment. In the following sections of this report we present our understand­ ing of the Food for Peace Title II program. We emphasize that conclu­ sions and suggestions presented in the report are tentative and subject to revision as other countries' Food for Peace projects are reviewed and our overall observations, findings and conclusions are synthesized in the worldwide study. Following the background material in Section 1, we present in Section II a description of the goals, purposes and activities which constitute the Food for Peace effort in Malaysia. In Section III we present our evaluation findings and suggestions in each of the project components. Section IV is a discussion of matters which cut across all of the activities. In order to maintain consistency within this report and with other documents prepared as part of our evaluation, we have adopted the following definitions of terms: Prograr:n: An identifiable assistance operation in its entirety, i.e., Food for Peace. Project: A major program division within the program, i.e., Food-for-Work, School Feeding. Activity: A specific component in a given location, i.e., assistance to State land development schemes in Kelantan. Goal: A statement setting forth long-range ends toward which the U. S. Mission, Host Country, or cooperating sponsor's efforts are directed. Goals will transcend the Food for Peace effort itself, and progress in achievement may not be precisely measureable. Purpose: Statements of the aim of the operational pro­ ject or activity, stated where possible in finite terms. Special conditions exist in Malaysia which impact on the need for food assistance, and on the strategies and impl]ementation developed to channel such assistance in the most effective manner. There are three matters which deserve brief explanation as background to our evaluation. They are (1) the generally high level of prosperity of Malaysia relative to other developing Asian nations; (2) the differing socio-economic conditions and approaches to government and develop­ ment between West and East Malaysia; and (3) the conscious policy of the Fede-eal Government to focus its development resources on Malay and "indigenous" groups. Any visitor to Malaysia with experience in adjoining Asian countries is struck by the surface indicators of prosperity. This is borne out in the economic indicators. Malaysia's per capita income was estimated at US $350 in 1970, the third highest in Asia after Japan and Singapore. The average annual GNP growth rate during the 1960-70 decade was six percent. The foreign exchange position is strong and the currency one of the "hardest" in Asia, based on exports of natural rubber, tin, timber, palm oil, and a growing petroleum export industry. The country borrows a large percentage of its external development funds commer­ cially in world financial markets, and seeks little foreign aid other than technical assistance for its extensive, planned industrial and rural development programs. Inflation has been held to approximately ten percent over the last 12 years, largely due to rising costs of imported goods. Within this overall picture of economic strength and growth there are, of course, qualifying factors, particularly when comparisons are drawn between West and East Malaysia. Within West Malaysia the west coast is urbanized, possesses the major ports and developed touristic attractions, and the major exploitable rubber and tin resources. The east coast is generally more rural, poorer, with few harbors, and is a major focus of Federal a "d State development projects opening the interior jungles to cash crops and public services. West Malaysia as 2 a whole covers less than one-half of the land area, but contains 85 per­ cent of the population. Within that population is a large wage-earning lower middle class, and there are few extemes of poverty ex:cept in certain pockets in the rural areas, and in the small squatter populations in the larger cities. East Malaysia (composed of the States of Sabah and Sarawak) is spread over 77,000of the country's 127,000 square miles, but contains only 15 percent of the nation's population. Sabah and Sarawak joined the Federation in 1963, and still retain autonomous control over various functions of internal government. The exploitation of the potential riches of the Eastern States is limited by the current lack of highways and rail­ roads, and the interior areas remain to a great extent undeveloped and even unexplored. The cultural and governmental differences between East and West Malaysia are, of course, complicated by their distance from Malaya. Malayan language and culture are still somewhat foreign, and there is an underlying mutual distrust and suspicion between the two regions. This situation, and the relative lower stage of develop­ ment of East Malaysia must be considered in evaluating food progranm needs and strategies. In fact, the two East Malaysian States deservc separate description. Sarawak, with 48, 000 square miles of territory, has the largest. area of any Malaysian State, yet its population is only 1,000,000, which, except for concentrations in a few small urban areas along the co;jsi, is widely dispersed. This factor creates special problems in extending food assistance, as well as ihe full range of public services. Indigenous tribes, of whom the Iban or Sea Dayak are by far the largest in number, constitute roughly 50 percent of the total population, the Chinese 30 percent, Malays ten percent, and Indians, Europeans and others ten per­ cent. The State has few roads and the primary mode of transportation, by far, is rivers which provide west/east connections from the ports to the hinterland. Both the efficiency and cost of river transportation are subject to seasonal changes in the size (water volume) of the rivers which make navigation frequently difficult or impossible over some of their lengths during extremes of high and low water. Sarawak enjoys a higher degree of autonomy in many areas, e.g., immigration control, finance, judiciary, than do the States of West Malaysia. In most instances, the state and/or district governments formulate and administer the public programs in Sarawak; only gradually are these being integrated with the national plans formulated in Kuala Lumpur. 3 The estimated population of Sabah in 1970 was 655,295. About in 75 percent of the population, 15 years of age or older, are engaged of Sabah's agriculture, forestry, hunting and fishing. Roughly two-thirds for population are indigenous tribal people (compared to eight percent smaller all of Malaysia). The remaining third are Malays and Chinese and Sabah is numbers of Indians. As in the case of Malaysia as a whole, concentrating its economic development program mostly on agricultural in the and rural development. Since nearly all of the tribal people live to rural areas, the various development schemes are directed largely improvements in the quality of life of these people through better health and education facilities, modernized. agriculture and improved trans­ on portation. Sabah's agricultural development is being concentrated diversified cash export crops such as oil palm, cocoa, and coconut, in order to avoid the heavy dependence on natural rubber which char­ acterizes West Malaysia. These differences in geography, culture and attitudes among the areas of Malaysia make generalization about the country difficult, and require us to distinguish among the States in the following discussions of Food for Peace projects. The third background matter of interest is the Federal policy of extending a higher proportion of public services, ownership and man­ agement of the nation's affairs, particularly industrial and commercial business as well as commercial and cash export agriculture, to Malays and other "indigenous" peoples. In addition,