ll off compared with their rural counterparts, aside from the environmental threat. Even in Kuala Lumpur, where the degree of success in addressing squatters' problems is significantly better than in most countries, l 7 per cent (over 156,000 people) of the city's population were still squatters in 1985.
In the rural sector, Malaysia has easily outpaced her neighbours in efforts to reduce poverty. Even so, the conditions in some parts of the rural economy have changed only marginally. In the agricultural sector, a significant degree of disparity still exists. The poverty level among many categories of small-scale farmers is still very high; 43.4 per cent of rubber smallholders, 57.7 per cent of paddy farmers and 46.9 per cent of coconut farmers in Peninsular Malaysia are still living below the official poverty line. Although specific data are not available, the incidence of poverty is estimated to be even higher among the swidden farmers and other indigenous communities in Sabah and Sarawak who, unlike their peninsular counterparts, are frequently left out of development projects directly funded by the federal government.
However, among the perplexing aspects of modern Malaysia is the fact that some of the impoverished agricultural areas include large-scale development projects implemented by the government, notably those for the paddy farmers and rubber smallholders; for example, the Muda valley in the peninsular state of Kedah is not only the site of the largest wet-rice irrigation project, it is also managed and administered by a specially instituted statutory organization (the Muda Agricultural Development Authority) to 'ensure its success'. But apart from considerable success in the spread of double cropping and the promotion of more productive technology, the social benefits are limited. Almost half (46 per cent) of its paddy farmers earned less than M$60 per month in 1982, 10 years after the completion of the project (Shukor Kassim, Gibbon and Todd, 1984). A social condition worse than in other paddy areas of Peninsular Malaysia (Scott, 1985) is, therefore, only to be expected.
This chapter will henceforth concentrate on the problems experienced by tribal minorities, but within the wider context presented above. Apart from being among the impoverished, the tribal minorities themselves are being increasingly marginalized. The nature of developmental and environmental problems encountered by these socio-economic groups by no means represents the vast range of socio-economic difficulties faced by the various threatened societies in South-East Asia, each of which can have a very different story. But it does offer a broad picture of the dimension of the concerns l:aced, the main driving forces, and the contending issues which need to be addressed in order to provide a more sustainable environmental future for the threatened peoples.
Tribal peoples of south-east Asia: Causes and nature of threat
From one perspective, the diverse ethnic composition of South-East Asia is among its most enchanting socio-cultural characteristics. Almost every one of the countries of the region contains as many as two to three dozen ethnic communities, each possessing and practicing a culture which is only superficially similar to that of the others. This situation is partly explained by the pattern of migration of the various ethnic groups into the region from the southern parts of China, as well as by political developments in the past (LeBar, 1972; Rambo, 1982). But most of these groups constitute small minorities. One or two racial or ethnic groups form between one-half and as much as three-quarters of the total population of each South-East Asian country; the rest comprise small tribal communities with populations frequently totalling only a few thousand. Minority status makes them relatively vulnerable to socio-economic and environmental changes led by, and largely for, the majority groups.
Since the 1980s, considerable interest has been focused on some of these small minority groups in South-East Asia, partly as a result of the fear-s