07 Income and Expenditure

7/28/2019 07 Income and Expenditure

1/25

62

INCOME AND EXPENDITURE

Income increases

Average household income for all ethnic groups increases. . . .

Urban income distribution more equitable

Monthy average gross household income of all groupsincreases

Brace for more price increases!!!

Rural Consumer Price Index (CPI) higher

High inflation in other countries in 2007-2008

Poverty profile

Incidence of poverty declining from 5.7 per cent to

3.8 per cent

Poor and hard core poor

Rural and urban poor

Poverty among ethnic groups is decreasing

Poverty is higher among ethnic groups in the rural area

Poverty among the Orang Asli

Poverty eradication


2/25

63

Income and Expenditure

Income increases

Overall, there was a significant increase in the average monthly gross

household income for all states in Malaysia for the years 1990, 2002 and2007. Although the Gini Coefficient showed that income distribution was

unevenly distributed, the differences however have become smaller.

Table 6.1: Mean monthly gross household income and the Gini Coefficient

by state, Malaysia, 1989, 2002 and 2007

Source: Economic Planning Unit

StatesRM Gini Coefficient

1989 2002 2007 1989 2002 2007

Johor 1,220 2,963 3,457 0.381 0.408 0.368

Kedah 860 1,966 2,408 0.428 0.426 0.392

Kelantan 726 1,674 2,143 0.407 0.444 0.368

Melaka 1,190 2.650 3,421 0.396 0.386 0.380

Negeri Sembilan 1,162 2,739 3,336 0.366 0.401 0.385

Pahang 1,092 1,991 2,995 0.350 0.404 0.380

Perak 1,067 2,153 2,545 0.421 0.417 0.399

Perlis 852 2,006 2,541 0.377 0.437 0.454Pulau Pinang 1,375 3,496 4,004 0.406 0.435 0.411

Sabah 1,358 2,406 2,866 0.459 0.465 0.450

Sarawak 1,199 2,515 3,349 0.441 0.445 0.442

Selangor 1,790 4,406 5,580 0.444 0.423 0.418

Terengganu 905 1,837 2,463 0.459 0.424 0.399

W.P. Kuala

Lumpur

2,102 4,930 5,322 0.428 0.448 0.446

Gini Coefficient

Gini coefficient is a measure of income

concentration. Gini coefficient values

are between 0 and 1 where a value of

0 indicates equal distribution of incomewhile the value of 1 indicates the

distribution of income of the leastfair.


3/25

64

Chart 6.1: Mean monthly gross household income by state, Malaysia, 1989,

2002 and 2007

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

RM

1989

2002

2007


Average household income for all ethnic groups increases. . .

Average household income for all ethnic groups showed an upward trend

from 2004 to 2009 with an average growth rate of 4.4 per cent. All ethnic

groups recorded an increase in the Gini Coefficient except for the other

ethnic groups. Income inequality or income disparity among Bumiputerawas the highest compared to the Chinese and Indians.

Table 6.2: Mean monthly gross household income and the Gini Coefficient

by ethnicity and strata, Malaysia, 2004 and 2009

Average

HouseholdIncome (RM)

AverageAnnual

Growth Rate

(%)

Gini Coefficient

2004 2009 2004-2009 2004 2009

Malaysia 3,249 4,025 4.4 0.462 0.441

Bumiputera 2,711 3,624 6.0 0.452 0.44

Chinese 4,437 5,011 2.5 0.446 0.425

Indians 3,456 3,999 3.0 0.425 0.424

Others 2,312 3,640 9.5 0.462 0.495

Urban 3,956 4,705 3.5 0.444 0.423

Rural 1,875 2,545 6.3 0.397 0.407



4/25

65

Urban income distribution more equitable

Gini Coefficient for Malaysia had increased from 0.462 in 2004 to 0.441 in

2009 and this reflects a more equitable income distribution. However, the

rural Gini Coefficient had decreased from 0.397 (2004) to 0.407 (2009)

showing unequal distribution of income or wider income disparity among

rural households.

Average monthly gross household income of all income groups

increases

Average monthly gross household income for all income groups showed

an increasing trend in the period 1992 to 2007. The average monthly gross

household income for the bottom 40 per cent as a whole has increasedfrom RM535 (1992) to RM865 (1999) and RM1,345 (2007). For the middle

40 per cent, average monthly gross household income as a whole

(Malaysia) has increased from RM1,392 (1992) to RM2,204 (1999) and

RM3,282 (2007), while for the top 20 per cent, the average monthly

household income has increased from RM4,022 (1992) to RM6,268 (1999)

to RM9,173 in 2007.

Table 6.3: Mean monthly gross household income for top 20 per cent of

households by ethnicity, Malaysia, 1992, 1999 and 2007

Ethnicity 1992 1999 2007Bumiputera 3,100 4,855 7,666

Chinese 5,348 8,470 11,878

Indians 3,743 6,456 9,119

Others 12,210 3,242 10,830

MALAYSIA 4,022 6,268 9,173

Table 6.4: Mean monthly gross household income for middle 40 per cent of


Ethnicity 1992 1999 2007

Bumiputera 1,093 1,810 2,863

Chinese 1,973 3,168 4,389

Indians 1,458 2,460 3,393

Others 4,655 1,204 2,459

MALAYSIA 1,392 2,204 3,282


5/25

66

0

2

4

68

10

12

14

Bumiputera Chinese Indians Others

RM ('000)

1992 1999 2007

Table 6.5: Mean monthly gross household income for bottom 40 per cent of


Ethnicity 1992 1999 2007

Bumiputera 449 742 1,194

Chinese 842 1,271 1,805

Indians 662 1,092 1,545

Others 609 616 1,025

MALAYSIA 535 865 1,345


For the period 1992-2007, monthly average gross household income for all

income groups of all ethnic groups has increased. Monthly average gross

household income for the top 20 per cent, middle 40 per cent and bottom

40 per cent of households by stratum have also increased.

Chart 6.2: Mean monthly gross household income of top 20 per cent of



6/25

67

0

1

2

3

4

5


RM ('000)

1992 1999 2007

0

5

10

15

20


RM ('00)

1992 1999 2007

Chart 6.3: Mean monthly gross household income of middle 40 per cent of


Chart 6.4: Mean monthly gross household income of bottom 40 per cent ofhouseholds by ethnicity, Malaysia, 1992, 1999 and 2007


Living quarters of various income groups

Flats Double storey houses Luxury homes


7/25

68

0

2

4

6

8

1012

1992 1999 2007

RM ('000)

Urban Rural Total

0

1

2

3

4

5

1992 1999 2007

RM ('000)

Urban Rural Total

Vehicles of various income groups

Chart 6.5: Mean monthly gross household income of the top 20 per cent ofhouseholds by strata, Malaysia, 1992, 1999 and 2007

Chart 6.6: Mean monthly gross household income of the middle

40 per cent of households by strata, Malaysia, 1992, 1999 and2007


8/25

69

0

5

10

15

20

1992 1999 2007

RM ('00)

Urban Rural Total

Chart 6.7: Mean monthly gross household income of the bottom

40 per cent of households by strata, Malaysia, 1992, 1999 and2007


Table 6.6: List of 15 richest individuals in Malaysia, 2009

NameValue of assets

(USD billions)Field

1 Robert Kuok 9.0 Diversified

2 Ananda Krishnan 7.0 Telecommunication

3 Lee Shin Cheng 3.2 Palm Oil

4 Lee Kim Hua 2.5 Gambling

5 Teh Hong Piow 2.4 Banking

6 Quek Leng Chan 2.3 Diversified

7 Yeoh Tiong Lay 1.8 Diversified

8 Syed Mokhtar AlBukhary 1.1 Diversified

9 Tiong Hiew King 1.0 Timber

Value of assets

(USD millions)

10 Vincent Tan 750 Diversified

11 Azman Hashim 470 Finance

12 William H.J.Cheng 390 Retail

13 G.Gnanalingam 260 Port

14 Lim Kok Thay 225 Gaming

15 Anthony Fernandes 220 Airlines

Source: Forbes 2009


9/25


10/25

71

Fuel prices were raised on June 5, 2008 which consequently led to the

increase in inflation rate. Rising fuel prices have a chain impact on the

cost of transportation and thus to the increase of the price of rawmaterials, goods and services. Consequently, the prices of goods and

services become more expensive.

Table 6.7: Consumer Price Index (2005=100) by region, Malaysia, 2005-2009

Annual changes (%)

Region 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009*

Malaysia 3.0 3.6 2.0 5.4 1.3

Peninsular Malaysia 3.1 3.5 2.0 5.4 1.2Sarawak 2.2 4.0 1.7 6.0 0.9

Sabah 2.9 3.7 2.1 6.0 2.8

Note: *January until August 2009

Source: Department of Statistics, Malaysia

From RM per litre To RM per litre

Petrol 1.92 2.70

Diesel 1.58 2.58

Consumer Price Index (CPI) measures the percentage

change through time in the cost of purchasing a constant

"basket" of goods and services representing the average

pattern of purchases made by a particular population

group in a specified time period.

Inflation is the continuous increase in the general price of

goods and services. Hence, inflation is measured by the

changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI).


11/25

72

Chart 6.8: Consumer Price Index (2005 = 100) by region, Malaysia,

2005-2009

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009*

% annual change

Sabah Sarawak Peninsular Malaysia MALAYSIA

Note: *January until August 2009


Rural Consumer Price Index (CPI) higher

Generally, the CPI is higher in rural areas than in urban areas. Prices ofessential goods are different between urban and rural areas. Often

people in the urban areas enjoy competitive prices of products due to the

more efficient and organized distribution systems, while those in the rural

areas lagged behind due to the layers in the distribution system. Small

retailers in rural areas have to pay a relatively higher transportation costs

to the suppliers. This delivery cost is also added to the price of essential

items that in turn will burden the consumers.


12/25

73

Table 6.8: Consumer Price Index by stratum, 2005 = 100, Malaysia,

2006-2009

Annual changes (%)

Strata 2006 2007 2008 2009*Malaysia 3.6 2.0 5.4 1.3

Urban 3.5 2.0 2.3 1.1

Rural 3.9 1.8 5.9 1.5

Note: * Weights based on latest weight from Household Expenditure Survey2004/2005

** January until August 2009


Three main CPI groups with higher weights are Food and Non-Alcoholic

Beverages; Housing, Water, Electricity, Gas and Other Fuels and Transport.

Weight (2005 =100) for the three groups is 31.4, 21.4 and 15.9 respectively.

The three main groups indices contributed to the overall increase in the

CPI from year to year.

Chart 6.9: Consumer Price Index (2005=100) of the three main groups,2003-2009, Malaysia

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Food & non alcoholic

beverages94.4 96.4 100.0 103.4 106.5 115.9 120.7

Housing, water,

electricity, gas & otherfuels

97.9 98.8 100.0 101.5 102.8 104.4 105.9

Transportation 93.4 94.1 100.0 111.0 113.6 123.6 112.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

IHP

Source : Department of Statistics, Malaysia


13/25

74

High inflation in other countries in 2007-2008

Almost all countries experienced high inflation in 2007 and 2008, regardless

of whether they are advanced economies, developing economies or

poor countries. At that time, the whole world is facing global pressure as

prices of goods increase drastically. The hike in world oil prices causes the

price of essential goods to rise. The impact was slower economic growth

as well as increasing unemployment and poverty statistics. At the end of

2008, the world was shocked by the financial crisis in the United States

(U.S). The crisis threatened the U.S. economy as well as other national

economies that are dependent on the U.S. economy.

Chart 6.10: Consumer Price Index (% annual growth), selected countries,

2004 to 2009

Advanced countries

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009*%

annualgrowth

Year

Germany Japan United Kingdom** USA

Developing countries

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009*%

annualgrowth

Year

Hong Kong Singapore Korean Taiwan


14/25

75

Selected ASEAN countries

0

5

10

15

20

25

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009*

%

annualgrowth

Year

Brunei Darussalam IndonesiaMalaysian PhilippinesThailand Vietnam

***

Note: * forecast** based on Eurostats Harmonised Index of Consumer's Prices

*** Bank Negara Malaysia Annual Report 2008

Source: Economic Planning Unit and the World Economic Outlook, April 2009

Poverty profile

Incidence of poverty declined from 5.7 to 3.8 per cent

For the period 2004-2009, generally the incidence of poverty has

decreased in tandem with the increase in average household income.

Average annual growth rate of household income is 4.4 percent. The

incidence of poverty has also declined from 5.7 per cent to 3.8 per cent.


15/25

76

Table 6.9: Monthly gross household income and the average incidence of

poverty by state, Malaysia, 2004 and 2009

Household

Income (RM)

Average AnnualGrowth Rate (%)

Incidence of

Poverty (%)

2004 2009 2004 - 2009 2004 2009

Malaysia 3,249 4,025 4.4 5.7 3.8

Johor 3,076 3,835 4.5 2.0 1.3

Kedah 2,126 2,667 4.6 7.0 5.3

Kelantan 1,829 2,536 6.8 10.6 4.8

Melaka 2,792 4,184 8.4 1.8 0.5

N. Sembilan 2,886 3,540 4.2 1.4 0.7Pahang 2,410 3,279 6.4 4.0 2.1

Perak 2,207 2,809 4.9 4.9 3.5

Perlis 2,046 2,617 5.0 6.3 6.0

Pulau Pinang 3,531 4,407 4.5 0.3 1.2

Sabah 2,395 3,102 5.3 24.2 19.7

Sarawak 2,725 3,581 5.6 7.5 5.3

Selangor 5,157 5,962 2.9 1.0 0.7

Terengganu 1,984 3,017 8.7 15.4 4.0

W.P. Kuala

Lumpur

5,011 5,488 1.8 1.5 0.7

W.P. Labuan 4,054 4,407 1.7 2.7 4.3

W.P.Putrajaya - 6,747 - - -

Peninsular

Malaysia

3,387 4,162 4.2 3.6 2.0

Sabah dan

Labuan

2,487 3,144 4.8 23.0 19.2

Sarawak 2,725 3,581 5.6 7.5 5.3

Source: The Tenth Malaysia Plan


16/25

77

Poor and hard core poor

Overall, incidence of poverty in Malaysia had declined from 8.5 (1999) to

3.6 (2007) and the incidence of hard core poverty from 1.9 (1999) to

0.7 (2007). There were five (5) states with incidence of poverty higher than

the national incidence in 2007 i.e. Sabah/W.P. Labuan (16.0), Kelantan

(7.2), Perlis (7.0), Terengganu (6.5) and Sarawak (4.2). While the states with

the incidence of hard core poor higher than the national rate of 0.7 (2007)

were Sabah (3.7), Kelantan (1.5), Perlis (1.4), Terengganu (0.8), and Perak

& Sarawak with 0.7 respectively.

Poors house

Poverty Line Income (PLI)PLI consists of two components, namely, FoodPLI and Non-food PLI.

PLI is determined separately for each household in the HouseholdIncome Survey according to household size, demographic

composition and location (state and strata). Therefore, each

household has its own PLI value based on the demographic

characteristics of each household. A household is considered poor if

its monthly household income is less than its PLI, meaning that the

households lack resources to meet the basic needs of all its members.

Whereas a household is considered as hard core poor if its monthlyhousehold income is less than the food PLI.


17/25

78

Table 6.10: Poor and hard core poor incidences by states, Malaysia,

1999-2007

Poor Hard core Poor

1999 2002 2004 2007 1999 2002 2004 2007

MALAYSIA 8.5 6.0 5.7 3.6 1.9 1.0 1.2 0.7Johor 3.1 2.5 2.0 1.5 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2

Kedah 14.2 9.7 7.0 3.1 3.0 2.0 1.3 0.3

Kelantan 25.2 17.8 10.6 7.2 6.1 3.4 1.3 1.5

Melaka 2.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.2

Negeri

Sembilan4.1 2.6 1.4 1.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1

Pahang 9.8 9.4 4.0 1.7 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.4

Pulau

Pinang 0.7 1.2 0.3 1.4 0.1 0.1 - 0.1

Perak 6.8 6.2 4.9 3.4 1.2 1.0 1.1 0.7

Perlis 13.6 8.9 6.3 7.0 1.6 0.9 1.7 1.4

Selangor 1.9 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.04 0.1

Terengganu 22.7 14.9 15.4 6.5 5.1 2.2 4.4 0.8

Sabah/W.P.

Labuan23.4 16.0 23.0 16.0 7.1 4.0 6.5 3.7

Sarawak 10.9 11.3 7.5 4.2 3.0 1.8 1.1 0.7

W.P. Kuala

Lumpur 0.4 0.5 1.5 1.5 - - 0.2 0.1



18/25

79

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0Hard core poor incidence

1999 2002 2004 2007

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

Poverty incidence

1999 2002 2004 2007

Chart 6.11: Poverty Incidence by states, Malaysia, 1999-2007

Chart 6.12: Hard core poor incidence by states, Malaysia, 1999-2007



19/25

80

Urban and rurals poor

Poverty in rural areas is also prevalent in the city. Group of rural poors

migrate to urban areas seeking a more comfortable life but the reality of

urban pressures such as high cost of living and transportation as well as

high prices of goods and services has contributed to the increase of

poverty in the city. However, the incidences of poor and hard core poor

in the city are much lower than the rural areas.

Squatters area in the city Poor in the rurals

Table 6.11: Percentage of poor and hard core poor households by strata,Malaysia, 1997 to 2009

1997 1999 2002 2004 2007 2008 2009(p)

Poor:Malaysia 6.1 8.5 6.0 5.7 3.6 3.8 3.8

Rural 10.9 14.8 13.5 11.9 7.1 7.7 8.4

Urban 2.1 3.3 2.3 2.5 2.0 2.0 1.7

Hardcore poor:

Malaysia 1.4 1.9 1.0 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.7

Rural 2.5 3.6 2.6 2.9 1.4 1.8 1.8

Urban 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2Note: based on Household Income Survey

(p) Based on projection data



20/25

81

The percentage of poor households has decreased from 1997 (2.1% in

urban and 10.9% in rural areas) to 2009 (1.7% in urban and 8.4% in rural

areas). Similarly, the percentage of hard core poor households has also

decreased from 0.4 per cent in urban and 2.5 per cent in rural areas in

1997 to 0.2 per cent in urban and 1.8 per cent in rural areas in 2009. The

percentage of poor and hard core poor households has increased slightly

in 1999 due to the impact of financial crisis of 1997-1998. Overall, povertyhas declined from year to year in line with the government's aspiration to

achieve zero hard core poverty and reduce relative poverty by the end of

2010.

Poverty among ethnic groups is decreasing

Overall, the incidence of poor and hard core poor shows a reduction for

the period 1999 to 2007. Among the three main ethnic groups

(Bumiputera, Chinese and Indians), Bumiputera recorded the highest hardcore poor, followed by the Indians and Chinese.

Table 6.12: Poverty incidence by ethnics, Malaysia, 1999-2007


Poverty is higher among ethnic groups in the rural area

The incidence of poor and hard core poor in rural areas of the three main

ethnic groups namely the Bumiputera, Chinese and Indians were higher

than in the urban areas. Bumiputeras poor and hard core poor were the

highest for both strata, followed by the Indians and the Chinese. Lack of

skills and low educational attainment were among the factors associated

with poverty among all ethnic groups.

Poor Hardcore Poor

1999 2002 2004 2007 1999 2002 2004 2007

Malaysia 8.5 6.0 5.7 3.6 1.9 1.0 1.2 0.7

Ethnic

Bumiputera 12.3 9.0 8.3 5.1 2.9 1.6 1.9 1.0

Chinese 1.2 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1

Indian 3.4 2.7 2.9 2.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Others 25.5 8.5 6.9 9.8 5.9 0.8 1.2 1.4


21/25

82

Table 6.13: Incidence of poverty and hard core poor by ethnicity and

strata, Malaysia, 1999 and 2004

1999 2004

Bumiputera Chinese Indians Bumiputera Chinese Indians

Hard corePoor

2.9 0.2 0.3 1.9 0.1 0.3

Urban 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.7 neg1 0.2

Rural 4.4 0.4 0.5 3.3 0.3 0.5

Overallpoverty

12.4 1.2 3.5 8.3 0.6 2.9

Urban 5.1 0.8 2.4 4.1 0.4 2.4

Rural 17.5 2.7 5.8 13.4 2.3 5.4

Poverty Gap 3.3 0.2 0.7 2.1 0.1 0.6Note:

neg1 = less than 0.05 per cent


Poor among the Orang Asli

In the Ninth Malaysia Plan, effort has been undertaken to improve the

quality of life among the indigenous people through socio-economicprogrammes, including the provision of education and skills training,

infrastructure and supply of water and electricity.

The Poor Orang Asli living quarters


22/25

83

According to the census undertaken by the Department of Orang Asli

Affairs, Malaysia (JHEOA) in 2006, the number of Orang Asli is 141,230

people. In terms of distribution, 36.9 per cent lived in rural areas,

62.4 per cent in suburbans and 0.7 per cent in the urban areas.

Table 6.14: Number of Orang Asli by states and main ethnic sub-groups,Malaysia, 2004

States Negrito SenoiMelayu

AsliTotal

Pahang 1,360 22,586 31,788 55,734

Perak 2,133 45,092 720 47,945

Kedah 232 - - 232

Selangor - 3,758 10,403 14,161

Kelantan 9,918 - - 9,918

Terengganu 28 653 - 681

Negeri Sembilan - 37 8,211 8,248

Melaka - 23 1,385 1,408

Johor - 3 11,393 11,396

TOTAL 4,851 80,972 63,900 149,723Source: JHEOA

The Tenth Malaysia Plan has identified 50 per cent of 29,990 of Orang Aslis

households are living below the poverty line. 5,700 households (19%) are

hard core poor. Various programmes are planned and carried out toremove the Orang Asli from poverty, as stipulated in the provisions to the

JHEOA in 2008.


23/25

84

Table 6.15: Orang Asli development programmes, Malaysia, 2008

Programmes Main activity Allocations(RM) 000

Arranged

PlacementProgrammes

1 Resettlement Plan (RPS) 14,444

2 Village Restructuring (PSK) 8,793

3 Natural Disaster Projects 4,000

4 New Village Plan (RKB) 1,100

5 Land Development FELCRA - 9105

hektar

RISDA - 14,999

hektar

EconomicDevelopment

Programme

1 State EconomicDevelopment Programme

2,660

2 Expansion Programme

(Course)

9,000

3 Entrepreneur Guidance

Programme

380

4 State Land Development

Phase 11

5,750

5 Business Space

Construction Programme

320

6 Village Tourism 400

SocialDevelopment

Programme

1 Poor Housing Programme 47,400

2 Head of Tribel Housing 140

3 Infrastructure and PublicFacilities Programme 3,392

4 Health and Medicine 470

5 Family and Society

Development

500

6 JHEOA Administrative

Facilities

350

7 Mental Development

Programme

1,588

Source: JHEOA


24/25

85

Orang Asli Village Resettlement Programme

Poverty eradication

Poverty Eradication Lead Agencies

Urban Rural

Ministry of Housing and

Local Government (KPKT)

Ministry of Rural and

Regional Development

(KKLW),

Ministry of Agriculture &Agro-based Industry

(MOA) and Ministry of

Women, Family and

Community

Development (KPWKM).

Other Agencies

Department of Orang Asli Affairs (JHEOA),

Federal Land Development Authority(FELDA),

Rubber Industry Smallholders Development

Authority (RISDA),

Federal Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation

Authority (FELCRA Berhad),

Department of Social Welfare, and

State Economic Planning Units.


25/25

86

Table 6.16: The development allocations for the Poverty Eradication

Programme, Malaysia, 2006-2010

Allocation

Programmes (RM million)

Poverty Eradication 4,465.3Citizens Well-being Development Scheme 340.8

Urban Poverty Eradication Programme 50.0

Rubber and Oil Palm Replanting Schemes 1,047.8

Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation 1,004.3

Regional Development 510.9

Redevelopment of Tradisional and New Villages 235.0

Orang Asli Development 361.8

Development of Agriculture Entrepreneurs 414.7

Development of Natives Customary Rights (NCR)

Land

100.0

Other Programmes 400.0

Source : Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006-2010

Planting vegetables project using fertigation Replanting rubber trees project

technology by agriculture entrepreneurs (Rubber replanting scheme)

(Agriculture Entrepreneurs Development)

Low cost houses to eradicate Computer and ICT Literacy Course for

urban poverty youths from hard core poor families

(Citizens Well-being Development Scheme)

Documents

07 Income and Expenditure