By Professor Dato Dr Ahmad Ibrahim
If asked to name a factor impeding the UN-SDGs, few would disagree it is poverty. This is why ending poverty is goal number one. The world may have achieved progress in many fields, but poverty reduction remains the most stubborn.
Malaysia once made news addressing poverty. Our FELDA scheme was hailed as a successful model in rural poverty alleviation. Many countries expressed interest to replicate it. Though not without their ups and downs, many remain convinced FELDA will rise again. The current government has declared fighting poverty as a high priority. It is not easy, but not impossible either. Universities are also actively doing R&D to develop viable solutions.
Under the initiative “Basmi Miskin Tegar,” or the eradication of hardcore poverty, much has been invested in research. Dato Seri Mustapa Mohamad, a key architect of the initiative when he was Economy Minister, is still actively involved in promoting the agenda.
As Advisor to the University Malaya Ungku Aziz Centre (UAC), Tok Pa has been persuading universities to work together on poverty research. On December 5, I had the opportunity to attend a benchmarking forum at UMS in Kota Kinabalu. It proved to be a productive sharing session on poverty research.
UMK could not make it because of the floods in Kelantan. The relevant agencies from Sabah also shared their experiences. The forum was unanimous that collaboration should be further expanded.
As alluded to at the forum, poverty is clearly not just about income. It includes lack of access to education, healthcare, clean water, and housing, to name a few. Sabah seems to be taking the biggest brunt of the country’s poverty incidences, followed closely by Kelantan.
The benchmarking exercise raised some common challenges. One is the difficulty in obtaining quality data. Getting the true record of project participants is also challenging. Another is the issue of mindset. Many in the hardcore poverty group remain hesitant to migrate away from their E-Kasih comfort.
There was also concern about the process of choosing target participants. Some aspects of the criteria have been compromised. Poorly designed social welfare systems, where aid does not reach the right groups, remain a major concern.
We know how economic downturns, inflation, and financial crises push vulnerable populations into poverty. Then there is climate change and natural disasters, which disproportionately affect poor communities. Poverty is clearly multidimensional.
Possible solutions have been bandied around. Many feel job creation is key. Getting the poor to dabble in business must come with proper analysis of the market. Business projects must be market-driven.
Often, participants are pushed into stagnating business ventures which lack market potential. The importance of education was flagged as a big enabler. This includes equipping the poor with employable skills—not to mention good education for their children.
Instruments including cash transfers, unemployment benefits, and pensions are measures that can support vulnerable groups. They must be properly monitored. Cases of abuse are common. It is important to strengthen institutions to ensure transparency and accountability.
Universities are uniquely positioned to leverage their research capabilities. They can pool expertise across fields to design innovative solutions tailored to local contexts. Joint research projects can analyze poverty trends and identify root causes, leading to evidence-based interventions.
Collaborative efforts in developing appropriate technologies—including clean water access, renewable energy, and agricultural innovations—can directly improve livelihoods. Universities can implement community-based projects where students and faculty work directly with impoverished communities to co-create solutions.
Universities can offer vocational training and entrepreneurship programs for marginalized groups, equipping them with marketable skills. Collaborative incubators can support social enterprises that address poverty-related challenges, such as affordable housing or microfinance.
They can conduct studies to inform policymakers on strategies. Collaborative networks of universities can share best practices, fostering innovation and scaling impactful solutions.
Hosting international conferences on poverty alleviation can create platforms for knowledge exchange and partnership development. Universities can collaborate with governments and industries to implement poverty reduction programs, leveraging funding and expertise.
Partnering with NGOs allows universities to reach vulnerable populations and implement research-based interventions on the ground. Clearly, the positive aspects of collaboration supersede the negatives.
The author is an Associate Fellow, Ungku Aziz Centre for Development Studies (UAC), Universiti Malaya.
Leave a comment