Many of the classical problems of “development” have not disappeared in Malaysia and other South East Asian countries despite decades of economic growth. Clammer (2000) notes that at the practical level poverty continues to be a core problem while high growth leads to the pollution and destruction of the natural environment and to the promotion of consumption as a way of life.
At the theoretical level, there are many pertinent questions that need to be addressed and resolved. These concern the relationship between economic growth and social change, the place of religion and values in determining the direction and thrust of development, and the need to create local models of change and development different from those found in the West. Many answers have been proposed to these questions and a number of methodologies formulated in attempts to define the issues of development in terms of local political or ethnic conditions (Mahathir,1970) or of the connections between local cultures and planned social and economic change (Dove, 1988). Other attempts to explore these questions include analysis of indigenous social movements, especially religious-inspired ones (e.g. Ileto, 1989), and analysing the way in which images of Asian society have been constructed, especially through colonialism, and then used to justify disparate patterns of development (Said, 1985; Alatas,1977).
Common to these approaches which have emerged in Malaysia and other countries in Southeast Asia is a preoccupation with issues relating to values. As pointed out by Clammer( 2000), such a preoccupation has appeared in a number of forms in these developing countries, such as
“ …concern with religion in its relationship to development, deepening interest in what has come to be called ‘sustainable development’, increased interest in ecology and the question of what kind of society and economy ecological responsibility implies.” (Clammer, 2000:2)
In all the areas of concern highlighted above, what is clear is that there is a recognition of the fact that the human dimension must lie at the core of all concepts of development. This means that economics or economic growth per se is subordinate to such objectives of development as sustainable change, cultural development, and modification of social structures in more humane directions. In other words, in Malaysia and developing countries in the Southeast Asian region, values in the context of development are to be viewed as foundational, not derivative.
Clammer (2000) observes that Southeast Asian values largely are and will continue to be based on a deep religiosity, a perception of the happy individual as one integrated into a co-operative group, who enjoys social mobility in a defined environment. This is evident in a typical Malay society, where three fundamental principles of social organisation prevail: darah or blood ties involving obligations or duties; muafakat or settlement of disputes through discussion and consensus; and kesayangan or love or sentiment that is found in all relationships. It is to be noted that the social, the moral and the religious are seen as constituent elements of a whole and that submission to them will create harmony and render the environment conducive for social interaction and progress. Importance attached to such relational values is also found, albeit at variance, in other Southeast Asian societies undergoing socioeconomic transformation.
An insightful understanding of the positive qualities of Asian values in the context of societal development is offered by Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad (2000) :
“ What I mean by Asian values is an absence of extreme individualism, a sense of responsibility for the community, belief in strong family, reverence for education, frugality, hard work, national teamwork, a social contract between the people and the State, moral wholesomeness, a free but responsible press, a belief in citizens as stakeholders and respect for the environment.” ( Mahathir in News Straits Times, March 20, 2000:2)
Most of the initiatives will have to come from within the societies in the region and much will have to depend on their own ingenuity, wisdom, available resources, regional cooperation and hard work. Unfortunately, the role of indigenous social thought in Southeast Asia and how it has transformed Western intellectual tradition into something quite localised has been neglected by Western-originated development paradigms.
In other words, the role of such an indigenous thought and the place and function of Southeast Asian writers, intellectuals and religious thinkers and their contribution to mankind have been left out in most of the earlier development studies. Mahathir (New Straits Times, March 20, 2000) notes that much of the indigenous intellectual thought has shaped social change, the reception of innovations, responses to major shifts such as the move from being under colonial rule to independence and emergence of mass consumption, just as much as it has in the West. If “traditional” as “pre-modern”, as widely discussed in the earlier chapter on modernisation, means non-adoption or rejection of Western preoccupations with rationalisation, then perhaps much of Malaysia as well as other emerging Southeast Asian countries have successfully escaped Weber’s “Iron Cage” and in turn created civilisations which have never been fully dominated by Western capitalism and ideologies. This challenges the earlier view of the dominant paradigm that only the Western person is rational. The Asian and non-Western person can equally be rational even if he chooses to pursue a course of development that is different from the one that has long been established in the West. Fortunately, there has been a recent movement that seeks to reassess the role of culture in development, and this in turn affects the way indigenous economic systems are understood and perhaps incorporated into a more sensitive and balanced understanding of what development means (Dove, 1988).
From whichever angle the development question relating to Malaysia is approached, the issue of values remains central. Ultimately, in Malaysia, development is about values, the quality of human life, harnessing and enhancement of human potential, harmonious relationship with the environment, and “ defining and pursuing the proper ends of human existence” (Clammer, 2000:12). It is to be noted that Malaysia, like most other developing countries, has to negotiate the relationship between its local culture and religious traditions and the forces of industrialisation, urbanisation and, more recently, globalism. It has also faced the problem of defining the kind of development it desires and the relationship between development and values it wants to enhance. It is an-going problem faced by any developing country and is part of an evolving process of nation building and the creation of a national identity.
Melkote (1991) observes that there has been renewed interest in studying the positive role of local culture in social change since the 1970s. The view of theorists in the dominant paradigm that culture conflicts with modernisation seem overtly abstract and unreal to many Third World scholars. (Gusfield,1971; Wang and Dissanayake, 184a). The local culture is constantly exchanging information with its external environment, interacting with other components in the system and thus continuously changing. Wang and Dissnayake (1984a) point out that denying the role of culture would deny the continuity that it has provided during all periods of change and thus deny history to the people or developing nations involved. Hence, the new paradigm of development will among other things, reconceptualise the role of culture in societal change and development process; it will be more open-ended and flexible than the deterministic and prescriptive development models of the fifties and sixties.
Dahlan (1989) notes that in Malaysia, development encompasses three components into a single entity: economic development, socio-cultural development, and human development.
“ The ultimate task in development in the context of Malaysia is to create a social system with the highest potentials and capacity in levelling up or distributing evenly the three basic values of development to all sectors of the population.” ( Dahlan,1989:181)
The commitment to, and the fulfillment of the three values highlighted by Dahlan (1989) underline a new paradigm shift in development for Malaysia, especially after the 1970s following the inception of the country’s New Economic Policy. The New Economic Policy has since been an important foundation for the country’s five-year national development plans. The two-pronged objectives of the New Economic Policy are (i) to eradicate poverty among all Malaysians, irrespective of race through raising income levels and generating new employment opportunities, and (ii) to restructure Malaysian society in order to correct racial economic imbalances in the context of an expanding economy, leading towards the creation of a united, socially just, economically equitable and progressive Malaysian nation (Yakub, 1990).
FROM GROWTH-ORIENTED PARADIGM TO PEOPLE-ORIENTED PARADIGM
Development in Malaysia in the early post-independent era right up to the early seventies was very much influenced by the growth-oriented paradigm (Yakub and Chang, 1990). The main concern of development planners then was mainly to improve the economic conditions and promote structural adjustments in the economy so as to maximise economic growth. Many development planners during the period seemed to assume that attitudes and institutions would automatically adapt accordingly with higher level of economic development (Myrdal,1968).
Doubts on the validity of the ‘growth-oriented’ paradigm, however, surfaced in the seventies. Studies on data from Southeast Asian countries by Rondinelli (1980) have indicated persistent poverty and widening regional disparities. The empirical evidence seemed to have overwhelmingly negated the key postulate of the ‘growth-oriented’ paradigm. The ‘trickle-down’ effect, which constitutes a key postulate of the growth-oriented paradigm, was not found to have reduced income and regional inequalities, two major issues of development. Dissatisfaction with the ‘growth-oriented’ paradigm has resulted in a shift towards a ‘people-oriented’ approach in the seventies in Malaysia. In Malaysia’s ‘people-oriented’ paradigm, development is largely seen as a participatory process for improving the quality of life of the people. Yakub (1990) adds that reduction of income inequality is not to be seen as a passive process in which the poor have to patiently wait for the ‘trickle-down’ effect to take place or for ‘handouts’ to come from the Government or the rich. Instead, it is to be done by encouraging the people to participate actively in the development process. In this context, the role of the government is to create various opportunities for the people to improve their own well-being and to bridge the socio-economic gap between the rural and urban areas, and between the Malaysian Chinese and natives. Seers’ (1969) suggestion that for development to be meaningful, it must be accompanied by reduction in poverty, unemployment and inequality, is thus relevant and it lends support to development initiatives planned within the ‘people-oriented’ paradigm.
FROM NEW ECONOMIC POLICY TO VISION 2020
Just like in any other Third World countries, development planners in Malaysia have largely been concerned with planning towards accelerating growth for social and economic development (Yakub, 1990). Such a thrust is considered germane to enhancing national unity, especially in a country like Malaysia which has a multiracial population. Malaysia has more than 50 ethnic groups, with Malays constituting 51 per cent, Chinese 30 per cent, Indians 12 per cent, and natives of Borneo ( the main groups being Ibans, Melanau, Bidayuh, Orang Ulu, Kadazandusun, Bajau and Murut ) 7 per cent. Differences in religion and languages add to the plurality. In view of the sensitivity of race and religion in the country, development initiatives aimed at reducing regional inequality and poverty will have to take into account the aspirations and needs of most, if not all, ethnic groups. The ‘people element’ – encompassing both growth and equity participation - remains very much a core element in Malaysia’s development paradigm, even long after the infamous Kuala Lumpur racial riot of May 13, 1969. The incident, which was a watershed in the political and economic history of Malaysia, provided a fresh insight into the relations between the various races in the country. It led the Government to question the appropriateness of the approach to development which was concerned with merely accelerating economic growth at the expense of growing regional and rural-urban inequalities, in the context of a multi-racial society comprising many ethnic groups who are identified by their level of income, economic function and geographical location. More importantly, it gave birth to the New Economic Policy in 1970 which marked the beginning of a major shift from growth-centred paradigm to people-centred paradigm in development.
Prior to 1970, more specifically between 1966 and 1970 ( the period referred to as the First Malaysia Plan ), Malaysia’s approach to development, just like elsewhere in the Third World, was very much influenced by the thinking of growth-oriented neo-classical economists ( Dahlan, 1995).
In 1971, the country embarked on a long-term development programme based on the Outline Perspective Plan (OPP); the First OPP from 1971 till 1990, and the Second OPP from 1991-2000. Under the First OPP, the Government implemented four five-year development plans, starting with the Second Malaysia Plan (1971-75) and ending with the Fifth Malaysia Plan ( 1986-90). These five-year plans, which operated within the framework of the New Economic Policy, represented an important phase in the nation’s long-term economic and social development where greater emphasis was placed on social integration and more equitable distribution of income and opportunities for attaining national unity and progress. They represented an important stage in the series of five-year national development plans designed to achieve the two-pronged objectives of the New Economic Policy (Yakub, 1990): (I) to eradicate poverty among all Malaysians, irrespective of race, through raising income levels and generating new employment opportunities, and (ii) to restructure Malaysian society in order to correct racial economic imbalances in the context of an expanding economy, leading towards the creation of a united, socially just, economically equitable and progressive Malaysian nation.
The Second Outline Perspective Plan (1991-2000) is basically a long-term plan which embodies the new policy called the National Development Policy to replace the New Economic Policy underlining the earlier First Outline Perspective Plan. During the ten-year period, two development plans have been implemented: Sixth Malaysia Plan (1991-95) and Seventh Malaysia Plan (1996-2000). The main objective of the New Development Policy is to attain balanced development in order to eventually establish a “more united and just society as envisioned in Vision 2020” (Socioeconomic Research Unit, Malaysia, 1992). Suffice to say at this juncture that Vision 2020 is the country’s national charter for the attainment of a developed nation status by the year 2020. Further deliberation is found in the latter part of this chapter. Of the New Development Policy, it is to be noted
“The focus is not only on the economic aspects of development but also on the interrelated aspects such as social justice, quality of life, moral and ethical values, work ethics and so.” (Mohd Sheriff, 1991)
Currently being implemented is the Eight Malaysia Development Plan, which covers the five-year period from 2001 to 2005. Many common aspects have been drawn from the Eight Malaysia Plan, Second Outline Perspective Plan, and Vision 2020 to indicate they are consistent and support each other. For purpose of projecting a composite picture, it may be useful at this point to recap again that Vision 2020 essentially provides a framework for achieving certain socio-economic targets within a 30-year time frame since its launch in 1990; the Second Outline Perspective Plan refers to a 10-year time frame , and the Eight Malaysia Plan spells out the policies, strategies and programmes to operationalise the Outline Perspective Plan for the period 2001-2005. Although they vary in time frame, they share a common objective, that is, to build a progressive, prosperous and a united nation, and the goal of national unity is the core thrust of the three policy documents.
The Second Outline Perspective Plan and the National Development Policy essentially set the pace to enable Malaysia to become a fully developed nation by the year 2020. The balanced development sought by the National Development Policy to achieve the ultimate goal of national unity encompasses the following ( Mohd Sheriff, 1991) :
Striking an optimum balance between the goals of economic growth and equity participation.
Reducing and ultimately eliminating social and economic inequalities and imbalances to promote a fair and more equitable sharing of benefits of growth by all Malaysians.
Promoting and strengthening national integration by reducing the wide disparities in economic development between states and between the urban and rural areas.
Developing a progressive society in which all citizens enjoy better welfare and are also imbued with positive moral and spiritual values and an increased sense of national consciousness and pride.
(v) Making science and technology integral components of socioeconomic planning and development and promoting a science and technology culture compatible with the process of modern industrial economy.
The concept of development and a developed nation that Malaysia is pursuing does not follow the system found in any developed country. As pointed out by the Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad ( Mahathir, 2000) :
“Do we want to be like the United Kingdom, like Canada, like Holland , like Swdedn…? To be sure, each of the 19 countries generally regarded as ‘developed countries’, out of a community of more than 160 states, has its strengths. But each also has its fair share of weaknesses. Without being a duplicate, we can still develop … we should be a developed country in our mould.” ( Mahathir, 2000 retrieved November, 2000, from World Wide Web: http://www.jaring.my/isis/mbc/2020.htm )
According to Mahathir ( Mahathir cited in Sarawak Tribune, 20 November, 2000), Malaysia should not be developed only in the economic sense; it must be a nation that is fully developed economically, socially, politically, culturally, spiritually and psychologically. In other words, development at its highest possible level must be realised in terms of national unity and social cohesion, in terms of the economy, in terms of social justice, political stability, system of government, quality of life, social and spiritual values, national pride and confidence. However, the Government views that the country cannot achieve the ‘developed nation’ status unless it succeeds in finally overcoming the nine central strategic challenges which are said to have confronted the average Malaysian since the country achieved independence from Britain in 1957 (Dahlan, 1995).
These challenges are :
To establish a united Malaysian nation with a sense of common and shared destiny
To create a psychologically liberated, secure and developed Malaysian society with faith and confidence in itself.
To foster and develop a mature democratic society, practising a form of mature consensual, community-oriented democracy that can be a model for other developing countries.
To establish a fully moral and ethical society with its citizens strong in religious and spiritual values.
To establish a matured liberal and tolerant society in which Malaysians of all colours and creeds are free to practise and profess their customs, cultures and religious beliefs and yet feel they belong to one nation.
To establish a scientific and progressive society that is innovative and forward-looking.
To establish a fully caring society and a caring culture, where there is a strong and resilient family system.
To ensure an economically just society where there is a fair and equitable distribution of the wealth of the nation.
To establish a prosperous society with a competitive, robust and resilient economy.
On account of the nine strategic challenges that need to be surmounted to achieve the ‘developed nation’ status, it is clear that economic development must not become the be-all and the end-all of Malaysia’s national endeavours. The development philosophy behind Vision 2020 requires economic development to go hand in hand with social justice to create an economically just society. It is a society where absolute poverty is eradicated and where the identification of race with major economic function is removed.
As one of the 13 states in the Federation of Malaysia, Sarawak places no less importance on the attainment of the goals of Vision 2020. This is reflected in the State’s development philosophy and policy thrusts which are spelled out in ‘The Politics of Development”, a development blueprint initiated by Sarawak’s Chief Minister, Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri Haji Abdul Taib Mahmud.
The State recognises the importance of changing the mindset of the people to enable them cope with the challenges and prospects of the new economy promised by Vision 2020. For Sarawak, transformation is a two-fold process (Mamora, et al. 1996). On the one hand, it involves restructuring the economy and integrating the various physical components of development efficiently to promote growth, productivity and quality of life of the people. On the other, it involves the development or acquisition of new attitudinal and behavioural patterns, innovative skills, knowledge and socio-cultural matrix so that the people will be able to adapt to change and participate meaningfully in the economic restructuring programme.
Mamora (1996) notes that while organised government intervention can help ensure the smooth implementation of the physical components of the economic restructuring programme, the same cannot be said of the human behavioural pattern within the same given context. This disparity has been a growing concern in recent years of both government leaders and planners in Sarawak as transformation entails balanced growth, which must take into account economic, social and environmental considerations.
SARAWAK: COPING WITH OWN SOCIAL AND PHYSICAL PROBLEMS
The 1960s and 1970s provided the time when the people in the State were beginning to be exposed to development, to appreciate and understand the meaning and concept of development , and the importance of planning for development. However, being new and having to cope with vast expanse of undeveloped areas, having limited manpower resources, the constraints in terms of lack of skills and expertise and the political and social problems that need to be addressed were among the limiting factors that affected development of the State then (Yakub,1990). Such constraints were acknowledged by the Chief Minister of Sarawak, Taib Mahmud, when he assumed the helm of the State Government in 1981.
“ In the early 1980s when I took over the helms of the State Government, I recognised the immediate need to analyse the situation by taking account of the political, social, geographical, economic and other dynamics that can move the State. The State has a large land size, almost as big as Peninsular Malaysia, and many ethnic groups whose development needs require special attention.” ( Taib in Third Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Address, Malaysian Academy of Medicine Newsletter, Nov 2,1996.)
The population density is sparse and scattered throughout the State in 5,000 settlements. During the 1960s and 1970s, Taib (in Third Tunku Abdul Rahman Address, Malaysian Academy of Medicine Newsletter, Nov 2, 1996) notes that the state of infrastructure like roads, ports, airports and telecommunication was poor while public utilities like water and electricity were also undeveloped. Likewise, until 2000, the land-ownership pattern in the State was outdated and it posed a constraint to promotion of large-scale commercial agriculture in terms of estates and plantations.
The social setting was no less complex, given the various ethnic groups with different religious and cultural backgrounds. Sarawak has more than 20 ethnic groups. The major ones are Iban, Bidayuh, Malay, Melanau, Kelabit, Bisayah, Kedayan, Kayan, Kenyah, Selakau, Sekapan, Lumbawang, Mirik, Punan, Berawan, Kiput and Narum. To effect meaningful change and development for these people, deliberate effort must be taken to shape their attitude and mandate so that they can participate in the mainstream of development after being preoccupied with their traditional ways of life for a long time.
At the political level, there were problems of political conflict and bickering, which have tended to preoccupy the minds of the people rather than consolidate to work for the greater challenge to develop Sarawak into a modern, progressive and developed State within Malaysia.
These were the problems, constraints, challenges and the setting that dominated Sarawak during the 1960s and 1970s, and consequently affected development in the State. Even after 35 years of independence within the Federation of Malaysia, the State of Sarawak still does not share the same set of social circumstances, demographic structure, administrative style and the general outlook of the people in Peninsular Malaysia, known as Malaya before 1963.
Prima facie, the uniqueness of the problems peculiar to Sarawak provides the raison d’etre for a new approach to development., as Taib (1996) rightly points out:
“ In the effort to accelerate development in Sarawak, we are therefore forced to adopt different styles and approaches…We consider the approach that we pursue is realistic and pragmatic to ensure that we succeed in our development endeavour by taking into account the special problem, peculiarity and uniqueness that the State is facing.” (Taib in Third Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Address, Malaysian Academy of Medicine Newsletter, Nov 2,1996.)
The uniqueness of the Sarawak situation prompted Taib, four years after he took office as Chief Minister of Sarawak, to embark on a policy charter called Politics of Development aimed at re-orientating the State’s thinking in order to achieve greater development (AZAM Journal 1995). Detailed-account of the Politics of Development will be discussed in the Chapter that follows.
SARAWAK’S POLITICS OF DEVELOPMENT
The Politics of Development is the brainchild of Taib Mahmud, Chief Minister of Sarawak, and was introduced in 1985 as the most appropriate development charter for Sarawak in order to achieve Malaysia’s Vision 2020. It marries the concept, objectives and challenges encapsulated in the mainstream programme of Vision 2020 and provides a philosophical basis and foundation for the people in the State to enjoy development so that they will be at par with their counterparts in the other states in Peninsular Malaysia.
Politics of Development in the context of Sarawak embraces several essential factors (Taib cited in Sarawak Institute of Management Journal, 1996).
The Politics of Development refers to the subservience of politics to development, wherein development is paramount and the people are expected to be fully committed to the development of the State through politics.
Politics of Development entails development in all spheres of the society: social, economic, human and physical. All sectors of the economy, all races and all aspects of development are to be duly addressed.
The people and people element constitute a major resource in effecting meaningful transformation of the State and are given due priority under the Politics of Development. But this can only be realised if there is a positive change in the attitude and mindset of the people as they face the challenges and opportunities in the changing environment.
Politics of Development recognises that a confluence ought to be developed for Sarawak’s varied and rich culture and traditions in order to yield common social and cultural values that will make Sarawak a strong and dynamic State.
It recognises the importance of communicating development ideas and messages effectively to all levels of the population. Hence, under Politics of Development, due emphasis is given to development communication in the hope that the masses will understand the short-term and long-term policies and programmes of the State Government and will be drawn into participating in the mainstream of development (Azam,2000).
Much importance is also attached to the role of leadership in the various sectors and all levels, as such leaders function as intermediaries in ensuring the effective dissemination of development policies, especially to the population in the rural areas which are not easily accessible.
Germane to the Politics of Development is the need for the people to embrace the culture of change.
Politics of Development is thus deemed as the most appropriate approach to development in Sarawak and is based on the recognition that a sustained focus on development will ensure an effective transformation of the community in the economic, social and cultural spheres (AZAM, 2000). As Taib (1996) rightly points out:
“ In essence, Politics of Development provides an enabling environment for our development. Why and how is this possible? Politics of Development brings about stability, unity, people’s support and above all awareness at all levels in respect of leadership role in our development.” ( Taib in Third Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Address, Malaysian Academy of Medicine Newsletter, Nov 2,1996.)
Given such a circumstance, there is a need to reaffirm the commitment of leaders and people to development, and this must be preceded by the appropriate education and training so that they are well-oriented to cope with the process of change ( Sarawak Tribune, 23 March 1996 ). Politicians and civil servants must learn to work as partners and pursue new innovative ideas, and both need to understand the aspirations of the people and be able to translate them into policy and administrative guidelines. In other words, politicians and civil servants must work in unison and be able to respond in a co-ordinated manner when resolving critical issues or problems which may require changes to Government policies. According to Taib (cited in AZAM 2000), misperception about the roles of politicians and civil servants and how they relate to each other can be a barrier to the Politics of Development, if not rectified.
In formulating a development policy, the State of Sarawak is concerned about the extent to which the people are able and willing to engage meaningfully in its implementation and about the kind of attitude it can generate in the people through the Politics of Development.
In the past, when changes in society were not as rapid as they are today, the expectations of the people were relatively low. However, the situation today is different as the Government is compelled to get to grips with the challenge of rising expectations, sometimes exceeding the capacity of the Government to cope and manage them (Mamora, in Sarawak Tribune, 23 May, 1998). Many developing countries are finding it difficult to meet the expectations of the people because beyond certain levels, these expectations become unrealistic. Conflict and disparity in political idealism may arise between the politicians and the people. To mitigate this, the people must be made responsible for what they ask for and they must be able to contribute through participation in development programmes ( Taib cited in AZAM, 2000). In other words, the people will only become more responsible if they realise that they can only ask and get what they can shoulder. In this respect, the politicians are expected to exercise a high level of discipline and, far from undertaking a political act alone, they have to shift their relationship with the public from one that is conscientiously seeking to maximise popularity to one that is desirous of forging a bond of lasting trust.
The Politics of Development as a concept of development in the modern sense of the word presupposes that the lower classes participate in the political process, at least to the extent that their demands are accommodated by the leaders in the event of social change. Worthy of note is Elsenhans’ (1991) reference to the theory of politico-social modernisation to illustrate the participatory role of the people in the political process to advance development.
“ In the theory of politico-social modernisation, nation-building in terms of a greater integration of the society concerned becomes the objective of political development and a precondition of economic growth.” ( Elsenhans, 1991:68)
It follows that nation-building or development in the Third World has to contend with social anomie, sharp social class differences and segmentations (Elsenhans, 1991). Anomie is to be understood as social disorganisation caused by the break-up of traditional social ties, without creating any social structures to replace them. Segmentation is the vertical splitting up of people living together on one territorial unit – the State.
POLITICS OF DEVELOPMENT: DEVELOPING CONSENSUS AND ATTITUDINAL CHANGE
Questions relating to the social and psychological adjustment of the people and the need for a paradigm shift in a changing environment are central to the discussion on the implementation of the Politics of Development in the State of Sarawak/
Sarawak is fortunate to have a good education system which has enabled an increasingly large number of people to understand what is at stake in the process of nation-building (Taib, 1996). Education at primary and secondary school level is compulsory and free, and access to tertiary education provided by the 10 public universities and more than 40 private sector institutions of higher learning offering undergraduate and post-graduate courses is also widely available. With such widespread educational development and training opportunities, the people should be able to view their aspirations vis-a-vis the development of the State and attainment of national goals more discerningly and from a broader perspective (AZAM,2000). Taib (Mamora in Sarawak Tribune,26 March,1998) spells out clearly the need for Sarawak to approach development beyond the economic perimeter.
“ …We cannot concentrate only on economic policy. We need to approach development in a manner that encompasses the total human dimensions. It must touch every field of human activity that is capable of influencing public behaviour, and the process requires unity of action from peoples of all walks of life.” ( Mamora in Sarawak Tribune,26 March,1998.
