There are a group of 11 farmers that we in PSM Perak refer to as the “Footballers”. They have been growing vegetables on 24 acres of government land, adjacent to the Ulu Kuang road, since before World War 2. At that time, they lived in simple houses on their farms. In 1950, they, like all other Chinese market gardeners in Malaya, were forcibly transferred to new, barbed-wire encircled villages under the Brigg’s Plan. In their case, to Kg Baru Tanah Hitam, Chemor, but they were allowed by the British to continue with farming in the day time.
Independence came, but these farmers were never offered grants or leases, though several of them applied, some repeatedly. Ethnicity probably played a part in this – the government of the day probably felt that too much of the property in Malaya was in the hands of the Chinese community, and that this “stranglehold” on the economy had to be addressed2. But the authorities did not ever ask the farmers to vacate their farms – the area was too remote to be suitable for other economic activities (until 2020). And the farmers were providing an essential commodity to the country – fresh vegetables and fruits.
In 2019, this set of farmers were shocked and dismayed to receive notices from the Kinta Land Office asking them to clear out within two weeks. They approached the PSM and we took them to see the land authorities. We were told that the Menteri Besar had decided to divide this land into housing lots for the Perak Football team as a reward for their success in the Malaysian League. We appealed to the MB. The MB came out with a press statement in July 2019, saying that the State government would provide the affected farmers alternative land to continue farming3.
However, despite numerous letters and trips to the Land Office, no formal offer of land was forthcoming. In 2022, when the Kinta Land office re-issued notices under Section 425 of the National Land Code, giving the farmers 2 weeks to shift out, or else face RM 500,000 fine and/or jail sentences, we had no choice but to take the matter to Court. Mr Rabinder Singh graciously agreed to handle this case for us pro-bono. We filed a Judicial Review arguing that until the State made good its promise of alternative land, the farmers should not be evicted. The High Court agreed to give and advised the parties involved that the farmers should not be evicted until the trial was over, and our farmers, the “footballers”, were able to continue tending to their vegetable plots till now4.
In 2024, the Kinta Land Office offered them alternative land on the foothills behind Kampong Baru Changkat Kinding. Though not the most suitable of sites (too hilly for vegetable farming), the farmers were prepared to accept the offer, until they saw the written agreement. This 5-page agreement document starts off well, by offering a 30-year leases to the farmers for a small annual rental. But clause 2-xii states that the land owner, PPPNP (the Perak State Agriculture Development Corporation – SADC), has the right to dig and remove minerals and sand from the site at any time. Even more ominously, clause 2-xxvii says that the agreement can be terminated by PPPNP with 30-day notice at any time, without recourse to compensation.
This is ridiculous. Preparing the land to be able to plant crops will take a lot of effort and capital – terraces have to be prepared, water supply ensured by damming a nearby stream and installing pumps and pipes to get the water up the slope. The crop planted may take a few years to mature before the farmers can start harvesting the fruit. How can they invest anything in the land with clauses 2-xii and 2-xvii hanging over them?
To add to the injury, clause 2-xxii of the agreement states that the farmers have to deal with any “squatters” who might already be on the land they are being offered.
Of course, the farmers were unhappy with these clauses. And they have been to meetings with the Land Office and the PPPNP over the past 2 years, to ask that these clauses be modified. However, the Land Office and the Perak GLC – PPPNP – have been “recalcitrant”, and have refused to alter any of the clauses. Our lawyer has also taken the time to attend these meetings, but has not been able to persuade the authorities to act fairly.
Altering the clauses that have been mentioned above will not cause the State any financial outlay, and it would make the offer a realistic and sincere one. The refusal of the Kinta Land Office and the PPPNP is quite difficult to fathom. The farmers are still trying to meet with elected representatives to lobby their case. It is hoped that the authorities will come to their senses and realize that building a unified nation requires more than pious statements on Merdeka Day celebrations. It requires sincerity and above all, fair treatment of all communities.
Note:
- Buruk Siku is a Malay proverb for an insincere offer.
- It is insincere on the part of the authorities to accuse the small farmers of utilizing government land without paying any rental, when in reality, it was Perak State Government policy that denied any legal tenure for farmers who have tilled the land since before World War 2.
- The YAB MB also insinuated that the PSM was making use of the issue to project itself as the champion of the poor, when in fact the interests of the original occupants had already been taken care of by the State.
- Unfortunately, this has been the extent of our aid to most groups of farmers. We just manage to prevent immediate eviction by appealing and dragging the matter to Court. In some areas the developer has agreed to pay some monetary compensation to shorten the process of land acquisition. In others, like the “footballers” we have gotten offers of alternative land. In none of the 20 vegetable farming areas that we have taken up in the past 6 years have we actually been able to win back the land for long-term food production. So, in terms of defending food security of the nation, our efforts have been a huge failure.
Jeyakumar Devaraj
PSM Chairman
8th November 2026