An important follow-up to my earlier letter on the need for land reform in the rural areas, has been raised in the English print media in connection with a somewhat similar position applying to Temporary Occupation Licence (TOL) holders.

I must apologise for not having mentioned this earlier because I have not done much research, nor have I had experience in this area. However, as it happens, I am writing a book that covers the question of TOL - arising from the squatter problem during the colonial period - which I would like to share with your readers.

The question of TOL had its origins in the squatter problem during the colonial period. The British government did not have a clear policy in regard to the access of Chinese squatters to land for cultivation.

The squatters claimed access to land as "freedom of cultivation as a form of natural right" as espoused by WE Maxwell, but this was rejected by the colonial government because of fear of objections by the Malay ruling class.

Instead they offered the squatters temporary licences with no tenure whatsoever. Alternatively, they were given land with titles but on worked-out mining land which the squatters obviously refused.

For the latter therefore, agricultural pioneering had become a battle against restriction as the farmers were forced to cultivate land illegally including forest reserves. There was no attempt by the government to suggest alternative policies such as land leases with tenure for at least specific periods so that the cultivators could develop the land on a long-term basis.

It is therefore my contention that at least one reason for the declaration of the Emergency by the colonial government was because of their failure to deal realistically with the land question for the Chinese earlier.

Finally, it may be of interest to note the policy of the late Sultan of Johor towards Chinese land ownership. His Highness was reported to have said something to the effect that if given land, the Chinese would become agriculturalists and settle down to become 'like the Malays'. His Highness also mentioned that if denied land, the Chinese would be forced to live in towns.

It seems that his Highness's vision was correct in respect of Chinese becoming agriculturalists. During my socio-economic research for the Johor Tenggara Master Plan, we came across many instances where the Chinese successfully farmed diversified smallholdings of between 8-12 acres of land and lived very comfortably in joint households comprising extended families.

Indeed, to the best of my knowledge, even to this day, the highest proportion of Chinese owning land in Peninsula Malaysia is in Johor. If this is correct, then this must be at least one reason why the Chinese have continued to give the Barisan Nasional government their fullest support during general elections.

In a closely related matter, there has been an important note to make regarding the 2006 Budget in that it is time that farmers get more income for their toil. This observation is in connection with the allocation of RM2.8 billion intended not only for farming but also for animal husbandry, fishing and forestry.

I should like to add on to this observation by emphasising that for this to happen, the rural infrastructure needs to be made more productive and competitive. Again, the urgent need for land reform as being fundamental to such infrastructural reform.

There is also the important need to develop the capacity and capability of those working in the agricultural sector so that they feel they have a stake in the industry and not simply function as powerless 'cogs in the wheel'.

For this to happen realistically, it is necessary that they have mentors who act as catalysts in the process of upgrading their operational skills. The late Abdul Razak was fully aware of this need and appointed state development officers to oversee the participation of agricultural workers in power-sharing institutions such as the Jawatankuasa Kemajuan Kampung (JKKK) and others in specialised institutions such as Farmers Associations and Fishermen's Cooperatives.

Indeed, because the development programme involved individuals and groups not accustomed to developing relationships within formal organisations, Razak recommended the appointment of village development assistants to assist in the process of this social change.

(Such officers have since been appointed and operate as Kemas officers, but regrettably it appears that their duties do not now involve that which was originally intended. Instead, they teach classes in Bahasa Melayu and conduct tadika (kindergarten) classes. It is also reliably understood that they are mainly Umno cadres and one of their main duties is to "deliver the votes" of the kampung people for the Barisan Nasional during general elections.)

It is pertinent to assert that priority be given to food production for the nation and for the long overdue need for agricultural workers to earn more income. I believe both these objectives can be fulfilled successively through the introduction of fresh fish-pond cultivation.

I have it from the specialists in this area, that this is an ideal activity for kampung people. All that is required is the digging of the ponds, filling the water and introducing the fish fry, all of which will be undertaken and supervised by this industry without cost.

The kampung people will only have to maintain the ponds and ensure that the fish feed (also given free) is given regularly to the fish. The industry will then undertake to do the entire marketing and will pay the farmers immediate cash on the spot on for the harvest of the fish.

I honestly believe that this proposal of 'fishing in kampung waters' needs to be given very serious consideration indeed.