The following letter, dated June 7, 2002, was sent to New Sunday Times in response to the editorial (June 2) titled "Squatters: At home with inaction" but it has yet to appear. I wish to make a brief comment on the editorial, and hope that you would kindly publish it in full:

Practically everyone agrees that squatter settlements are an eyesore and the cause of many a social and health problems. But as the editorial candidly admits, "They are a damning indictment of governmental, social and economic failure ... even more damning for Malaysia, whose rapid economic growth should have more than amply accommodated its burgeoning urban population".

In this country, the festering of squatter settlement has partly been due to the government encouragement of the process of urbanisation among Malays, especially following the May 13, 1969 incident, which was aimed at promoting ethnic balance in the urban population. For a long time the urban settlements have been a source of strong electoral support for government politicians, and so have been protected.

Recently there seem to be signs that a large section of the squatter population is shifting support to the opposition parties. In addition, there has been an uncontrollable growth of squatter colonies opened up by the increasing number of migrant labour. Have these become additional factors influencing the government authorities to take firm actions, so that the country is "rid of its wretched squatter colonies", as your editorial puts it?

I do not imagine anyone would like to see human beings continuously living in squalor. The majority of the squatter population do not choose to live that way, but instead are forced to do so. They have low incomes and cannot afford to pay high rentals or prices for houses in the towns. They form the bulk of the urban poor. Surely a large number of them need to be treated in more humanitarian manner?

It is acknowledged that there are indeed some rather well-to-do people living in squatter areas, although they can well afford to rent or own houses in many of the housing schemes that have been sprouting in recent years. Indeed there are also those who build squatter houses for profit. But these opportunistic groups of people have to be clearly distinguished from the genuine urban poor.

It is most inhuman to forcibly evict the genuine urban poor, of whatever ethnic group and whether they are locals or immigrants, from their squatter homes. In the past, many squatters have been evicted with little or no compensation, and even without notice. Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad is on record as having said that squatters should not be forcibly evicted before they are provided with proper alternative housing. Unfortunately, of late, actions taken on squatters have become more inhuman.

It is said that there is a programme for building more than 600,000 new houses by the private and public sectors. The question is: do the majority of poor squatters, who have been evicted by force, manage to rent or buy these houses? More often than not the answer is "No". There are several reasons for this.

  • Firstly, only a proportion of the houses — and they are not sufficient — are of the low-cost types, that the lower income groups can afford.

  • Secondly, even the so-called low-cost houses are getting too expensive now, especially for the poor.

  • Thirdly, with their low incomes, the poor cannot afford to pay the monthly instalments, if they want to purchase a house of their own.

  • Fourthly, many of these squatters do not have access to bank loans, because they often do not qualify owing to age.

  • Finally, in many instances, low-cost houses have been allocated to government party supporters, and not to the genuine squatters.

    • Actually, in view of all these, the urban poor facing housing problems demand justice, not just humanitarian treatment. Your call that the squatter colonies "be torn down, without delay" makes no sense, in fact it is cruel, if the squatters are forcibly evicted without being given reasonable notice, adequate compensation or proper alternative land or housing. Billions of public funds have been used to bail out very rich corporate cronies. Why cannot some be used to subsidise the urban poor to help them overcome their housing problem?