ghting 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 inevitable. It is a concept which is more acceptable to bureaucrats and politicians.
Both ideologies have specific merits, and both have been employed in the region, though frequently not together. This in itself indicates another dimension of the issue of addressing problems related to threatened peoples everywhere; that is, the solution to their problems is constrained by the self-interest of others, including, unfortunately, academics on whom falls the responsibility of finding the answers. In this as in other regions of the Third World, many experts dealing with this subject have recommended the employment of traditional socio-economic systems as alternative means of improving and sustaining the economy, livelihood and culture of indigenous people. The rationale and merit of the idea rest on the recognition that the traditional systems are environmentally friendly and have succeeded in fulfilling the needs of these societies for centuries. This argument is found in many current works (for example, Bodley, 1990; Paul Richards, 1985).
Is this approach a viable alternative? Based on the preceding analysis, it is imperative that until the term 'traditional' is clearly defined; until the core (primary) can be identified and separated from the secondary (and less important) attributes of traditional culture; and until at least the important undercurrents within the societies involved, and numerous other related issues, are fully understood, the 'populist' approach will remain only an avenue for theorizing. It is no doubt a very romantic concept. However, traditional systems are sustainable only under some very rigid conditions: demographic, social and economic. Even in the case of the Penan (including the nomadic groups), its validity is doubtful. Indigenous socio-economic systems in themselves are very dynamic, as was seen among the Orang Ulu. Such dynamism was essential in order to contain exploitation by the more advanced socioeconomic groups.
Moreover, if threatened peoples are to be able to compete with, and to avoid 