r affairs, as has happened in the Philippines.
Most South-East Asian countries have also created agencies responsible for administering the affairs of tribal people and other weaker social groups, such as the Jabatan Hal Ehwal Orang Asli (Aborigines Affairs Department) in Peninsular Malaysia and the Office of the Presidential Assistant on National Minorities (PANAMIN) in the Philippines. Unfortunately, these agencies were, in most cases, created more out of government concern for some broader national issues rather than the problems of these weaker and vulnerable societies. Both agencies mentioned above were created to safeguard national security; they are not efforts geared largely towards improving the livelihood of the societies concerned. In most cases, these are 'front agencies' with 'tribal tags' to justify activities undertaken by the government. It is not surprising that very few, if any, of these bodies have been successful in enhancing the economy, and winning the desired co-operation of the threatened people involved. Even after a few decades of its existence, during which it was allocated millions of dollars in funds, the Jabatan Hal Ehwal Orang Asli has had little success in improving the economic well-being of the people it was established to assist (Jinnin, 1987).
The Orang Asli communities remain the most impoverished in Malaysia, poorer even than the tribal societies of Sabah and Sarawak, who did not receive nor were given such concerted attention. Apart from Malaysia, where the achievement of some of its landdevelopment projects is fairly impressive both in the social and economic fields, this cannot be said for many similar efforts carried out in the regions affected by the transmigration programme in Indonesia, especially those in Kalimantan.
These projects and agencies, however, did achieve some of the desire,d objectives of the government, especially those for which they were specifically targeted. The creation of the Jabatan Hal Ehwal Orang Asli contributed in some ways to the success in fighting the Communist insurgency in Peninsular Malaysia. Unfortunately, most of the blame for the failure of such development projects was directed at the poor groups themselves. While it is true that many development projects failed due to the lack of co-operation from poor rural communities, there are strong reasons for such responses. In almost all cases, rural groups were not consulted or involved in the planning, implementation and administration of projects which directly interfered with their livelihood. Many schemes are also based more on the perceptions and aspirations of outside planners than those of the rural communities.
This is also true of urban squatters. Singapore aside, only Malaysia has shown some credibility in handling problems faced by these people. This might be related to the fact that Malaysian cities, even Kuala Lumpur, are smaller in population size than other SouthEast Asian cities. Even so, the situation is gradually changing as Malaysian cities expand and start to encompass surrounding rural areas which are now integrated into the urban social and economic system.
How should the threatened peoples be assisted? Broadly, two theories exist in the literature, especially with respect to tribal communities. The first approach is the 'idealist' one; an idea mooted as early as 1872 by Joseph Kaines, and which is favoured especially by environmentalists and those championing the rights of the various threatened groups. The concept proposes that tribal people and related groups should be left alone. The creation of 'tribal sanctuaries' and biosphere reserves, which have won United Nations (UN) support since 1970 in the form of the UN Biosphere Reserves programme is one practical manifestation of this ideology.
The second approach is the 'realist' one, which argues that tribal peoples cannot survive in seclusion. They cannot be left alone. They need some form of external assistance to upgrade their quality of life. This approach considers the demise of some aspects of tribal culture as inevitab