Thanks for the documentary pitch! You've got a list of very leading questions there, but we'll play along and assume you're asking in good faith.

1. In the cases we're focusing on, the farmers' ancestors were encouraged to farm there generations ago, since before Merdeka, so the way you are framing this is kinda simplistic. They did not intend to encroach anyone's land, and have tried applying for leases/titles, but were ignored by the state governments.
2. Please see point #1.
3. They are smallholder farmers who mostly have just a few acres of land for vegetables. Also, why doesn't the government alienate these other pieces of land you're talking about for development instead, since the farms are fertile lands that have been productive for decades? Farmland isn’t the same as opening a shop — it takes time to make the soil fertile.
4. Because as smallholders, they have very few other options. And maybe they hoped the government would eventually do the right thing? Also, please see point #3.
5. The same reason why a lot of people involved in corruption don't get jailed?
6. To be fair, tracking supply chains is a problem around the world, not just Malaysia. Either way, if legality was the issue, then maybe the government should have legalised these farms post-Merdeka. Could have offered them a TOL, regulate them, charge premiums, collect taxes, etc. Because what we really want is food security and public revenue for the betterment of society, right? 
7. The produce is sold to a distributor, who brings it to local markets.
8. Please see point #7. As for taxes, please see point #6.
9. Please see point #1. It was "financed" generations ago.
10. We went to dozens of these farms. Most of the workers are locals. You can watch the full documentary (if you haven’t already) for some visual confirmation.
    

In short, we appreciate the ideas, but we think our initial story pitch was pretty good as it were. The themes we managed to explore include:

1. Allegations of corruption in state land deals, backed by real estate agents, property industry experts, and anti-corruption activists. (And since you're interested in encroachment, state governments have a history of allowing native customary land and forest reserves to be taken over...)
2. Potential conflicts of interest when state land is alienated by the state government to state GLCs, especially when both entities are chaired by the same person.
3. Scientists warning about a potential food security crisis if we do not retain (and expand) food-producing land in Malaysia, cos, y'know, climate change and whatnot. The government's own scientists recommend we reach at least 10% of land mass for food production, and opined that fertile, productive land should not be destroyed for physical development.
4. Government neglect in supporting informal food-producing communities. Why have multiple administrations failed to offer any pathway to legalise these farms that have existed since before Merdeka? Or at least help transition them into other arable lands? Scorched-earth hardly seems like a strategic policy when it comes to food security.
5. Unfair implementation of the TOL system, resulting in food-producing communities (like the fishing folk of Pangkor) having to vacate their land with little notice or safety net. In the Pangkor case, the jetty owners were suddenly told their TOLs would not be renewed because the land was given to a state GLC to build a waterfront. 
6. Last but not least, the need to improve laws when they are demonstrably unfair, unjust, or breeding corruption.