Commentary by Mustafa K. Anuar

MALAYSIANS have taken to social media to vent their anger and frustration over the shortage of foodstuffs, such as chicken, and the rising prices of such products in the country.

But some are somewhat relieved after the government did away with the approved permits for food imports.

The foodstuff price hike is due to a local food production shortage, partly brought about by the labour shortage and higher costs of imported fertilisers and pesticides by 50% and 100%, respectively.

The Russia-Ukraine war has also disrupted wheat supply worldwide.

Following this, the government moved to ease food importation to ensure sufficient supply in the country.

But local stakeholders, such as animal breeders and farmers, are concerned that the move will adversely affect them in the long run, as importing food will make local food production less economically feasible and subsequently endanger food security in the country.

This can also be aggravated by uncertain weather conditions caused by climate change.

Malaysia is exposed to the vagaries of global food production and pricing. Its risks of exposure are heightened by its heavy dependence on food imports, which reached a record high of RM55.5 billion in 2020.

It is disturbing to know that food import expenses will likely increase if the ringgit drastically depreciates against the US dollar as our country pays the producer country in US dollars.

With this knowledge in mind, one cannot imagine the huge challenge that a food price hike poses to the vulnerable and those who struggle to put food on the table on a regular basis.

Such a situation can drive someone in desperation to, say, steal a can of sardines and end up being thrown into the slammer.

In other words, free-for-all imports are not a panacea to our food problem in the long run.

Putrajaya must have a comprehensive long-term strategy and policy to boost the local food production capacity to meet the needs of 32 million people.

With food security in mind, the government ought to make more state land accessible to farmers for agricultural use and provide subsidies for, say, the purchase of related machinery.

Certain incentives go a long way towards increasing the food production capacity of not only farmers, but also fishermen and ranchers.

Putrajaya should take a leaf out of the book of late prime minister Abdul Razak Hussein, whose Green Book Plan in the 1970s states that any farmer, individual or group who wants to farm on government land will be permitted to do so in an effort to increase food production.

Seen in a wider social context, it, therefore, boggles the mind when certain state governments evict small farmers from farmland – some of which have been cultivated for decades – robbing them of their source of income and jeopardising food security.

Several vegetable farmers were recently served eviction notices by the Perak government, who wants to commercially develop the plots of land though they are important sources of vegetables for consumers nationwide.

Parti Sosialis Malaysia chairman Michael Jeyakumar Devaraj, who is assisting these farmers, said only an estimated 5% of the eight million hectares of agricultural land in the country is used for vegetable cultivation.

To put things in perspective, about 25% of land in the country is used for agricultural purposes. Of that amount, 5.5 million hectares are oil palm plantations and about one million hectares are rubber plantations, which constitute more than 80% of agricultural land being used for commodity production.

Another 0.7 million hectares are used for padi cultivation, and 0.8 million hectares (10% of all agricultural land) are used for all other crops, animal husbandry and freshwater fish rearing.

Such neglect in agriculture can be traced back to the 1980s administration of Dr Mahathir Mohamad, whose development thinking was oriented towards industrialisation over the years. We reap now what we sowed then.

The renaming of Universiti Pertanian Malaysia to Universiti Putra Malaysia symbolises such a paradigm shift.

In the past, Malaysia used to have plenty of local fruits and produce, but now, a lot of them are imported. Most households have stopped growing basic fruits, such as bananas, mangoes, papayas and rambutan, which were grown in abundance in the old days.

Apart from that, we have allowed agricultural farmland to be easily converted to industrial and mixed development use. As a result, we have, in particular, a glut of high-end property.

Given such a social context, a Penang project to reclaim land for commercial use over a rich fishing ground is clearly appalling, to say the least, especially if we are serious about pursuing food security and sustainable development.

Similarly, it is unbelievable that a fishing enclave and the surrounding self-sustaining fishing community are to be replaced with sports facilities by an international school in Penang. It appears that certain priorities have been misplaced at our own peril.

Short-term gains, particularly financial, should not bedazzle us into believing that money can always buy food. – May 23, 2022.