By Remy Majangkim, MA63 Activist, Researcher and Tutor
KOTA KINABALU: At the beginning of September this year, the price of imported rice has increased between RM 7 to RM 10 per packet of 5 Kg to 10 Kg of rice.
The rice consumption in Malaysia is at 2.9 Million Metric Tones (2022), and it was reported that we imported 30% rice that narrowed our rice import to around 870,000 metric tonnes per year.
Malaysia has around 300,500 hectares of paddy field land and 190,000 hectares located in the Borneo States.
The increase in the price of rice can be explained in the steady decline of our currency, the Ringgit Malaysia, the temporary halt of rice export from India and the continuing global conflict.
So the only rice producer in Asia that is in abundance is Vietnam, and Thailand that sells it at the higher rate due to high demand.
An economic 101: whereas shortages occur, demand increases, so does the price increase.
The main questions in my mind were: why is there a monopoly of rice in Malaysia? Rice is our staple food. As one can imagine, rice should not be monopolised and centralized. Before the formation of Malaysia, rice was basically State affairs, but as times go, the rice industry in Malaysia has been hijacked by the Federal Government as it sees fit and included in a Federal act that ultimately disbanded Sabah Padi Board pave the way for a capitalist corporation to have a complete monopoly.
It all begins with a federal act called the Lembaga Padi Dan Beras Negara Act, 1971 (No. 47) during the height of emergency ordinance that serves five functions under the act;
a) to conserve and maintain an adequate supply of padi and rice;
(b) to ensure a fair and stable price of padi for farmers;
(c) to ensure a fair and stable price of rice for consumers;
(d) to ensure sufficient supply of rice to meet all emergencies;
(e) to make recommendations to the Government in the matter of development of the padi and rice industry.
The act comes into force for Malaya (West Malaysia) & Sarawak on 20 September 1971 and Sabah on 1 January 1979 to resolve rice hoarding issue. Sabah Padi Board ultimately winds up on 30 December 1981, under the SABAH PADI BOARD (SUSPENSION) ORDER, 1981. Hence, it begins.
There are subsequent changes made over the years, namely, Lembaga Padi Dan Beras Negara (Amendment) Act 1986 and Lembaga Padi dan Beras Negara (Amendment) Act 1990, Finally, in 1994, all of the act above was repealed and replaced with the Control of Padi and Rice Act, 1994 (No. 522).
Therefore, it is the beginning of an authoritative figure in Malaysia Rice Monopoly as we all know it called BERNAS.
This begs the question: can the federal law be extended to Sabah and Sarawak that has their own local rice authority? The answer to this lies on the timeline in which the law was enacted. As the State rendered powerless by such a take-over by the federal government, therefore the state compels to follow suite.
Rice planting requires land. In the common designation of agriculture reflected in the Ninth Schedule of Malaysia Federal Constitution, land matters and agriculture belong to the State jurisdiction, as noted in the State list (list II).
So obviously, there are State laws in regards to rice cultivation, it is found in the Native Rice Cultivation Ordinance (Sabah Cap 87) that was in effect on 19 April 1939 as “To provide for the proper cultivation of native rice lands.”
And, follow suite in Agriculture Produce Board Enactment1981 (Sabah No. 18 of 1981) effective 16 April 1987. This is an extension of the State Government authority in welfare, marketing our agriculture produce in the State.
Controversially, the admission of Sabah into the Control of Padi and Rice Act, 1994 (No. 522) can be considered an unconstitutionally move although the Federal Laws lie supreme, but it cannot override existing State law which does exist.
In conclusion, we reserve the right to plant, harvest and sell our agriculture produce, including rice. We have the right to ensure our food granary and security at the best interest of the State.
We had lost our rice right since 1979, that was 44 years ago, we are going to wait another 44 years to claim it back?
