Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2023/The Penan and Kelabit Indigenous Peoples of Sarawak, Malaysia: an analysis of their engagement and conflict with logging companies on their traditional unceded territory

From UBC Wiki

Summary of Case Study

Since joining Malaysia in 1963, Sarawak has witnessed its forests become heavily impacted by extensive industrial logging and plantation development, leading to significant deforestation and environmental degradation. The Penan, Kelabit, and other Indigenous Peoples in Sarawak have suffered from these consequences, which have significantly affected their traditional lifestyles. Consequently, the Penan, along with other Indigenous groups, have actively resisted these developments through protests, blockades, and legal actions. However, their efforts are often countered with legal restrictions imposed by the Sarawak government, designed to curtail Indigenous activism and weaken land rights claims. Major timber companies involved in extensive logging have further exacerbated the situation, often overlooking Indigenous land rights. This case study explores the complex interactions between the Penan and Kelabit Indigenous Peoples of Sarawak, Malaysia, and the logging companies encroaching on their traditional lands, as well as the government's response to these conflicts. The study highlights the challenges these Indigenous communities face in preserving their Native Customary Rights (NCR), particularly under the Land Code 1958 and its subsequent amendments. The study emphasizes the deep-seated marginalization and distrust of Indigenous communities towards state and federal authorities and underscores the need for genuine legal reforms and government interventions to address these longstanding land rights issues effectively.

Keywords

Penan People, Kelabit People, Sarawak, massive logging, deforestation, native customary rights

Introduction

Geography and Location

The location of Sarawak, Malaysia

Sarawak is largest among the 13 states of Malaysia, covering an area of 124,449.51 square kilometres, almost equal to the size of Peninsular Malaysia[1]. Sarawak is located in the region of East Malaysia in northwest Borneo, between latitude 0° 50' and 5°N and longitude 109° 36' and 115° 40' E[2]. It stretches some 800 kilometres along the northwest coast of Borneo, and is bordered by the Malaysian state of Sabah to the northeast, Kalimantan (the Indonesian portion of Borneo) to the south, and Brunei in the north[3].

Sarawak features a tropical geography with an equatorial climate and experiences two monsoon seasons: the northeast monsoon with heavy rainfall from November to February, and the southwest monsoon from March to October with less rainfall[4]. The average daily minimum and maximum temperatures ranges between 23°C in the morning and 32°C at the peak of day. Humidity usually surpasses 68%, and annual rainfall varies between 330cm and 460cm, spread over more than 220 days[5]. Geographically, Sarawak is split into three ecoregions: the flat coastal region with large areas of swamp and other wet environment; the hilly central areas where most of the cities and towns can be found; and the mountainous region along the Sarawak–Kalimantan border[2]. Sarawak boasts a rich biodiversity with 3,000 known tree species, 185 mammal species, 530 bird species, 166 snake species, 104 lizard species and 113 amphibian species in the State. Many of Sarawak’s animals are unique to Borneo and cannot be found in mainland South-east Asia[6].

Overview of Indigenous Peoples Live in Sarawak

Dayak men and women at Kuching in Sarawak, Malaysia, Borneo - circa 1900

Sarawak's population increased from 2,471,140 in 2010 to 2,907,500 in 2020[7]. In Sarawak, the Indigenous Peoples are collectively known as natives (Dayak and/or Orang Ulu)[8]. They constitute around 1,932,600 or 70.5% of Sarawak’s population of 2,707,600 people as of 2017[8]. The non-Muslim Indigenous communities, primarily Christians or those practicing animist beliefs, are collectively referred to as Dayaks and constitute about 40 percent of Sarawak's population[9]. The Iban, also known as Sea Dayak, form the majority within this community, accounting for 30 percent of Sarawak's population, with the Bidayuh being the second-largest group. Other indigenous groups include the Kenyah, Kayan, Kedayan, Murut, Punan, Bisayah, Kelabit, Berawan, and Penan[9][10]. Dayaks residing in Sarawak's interior are sometimes called Orang Ulu, or people from the interior. Most of the Indigenous Peoples from Sarawaks's interior typically live in longhouses. They practice shifting cultivation, hunting and collecting forest products for subsistence, and some of them living near rivers practice fishing as a dietary supplement[9][10]. Only a few hundred Eastern Penan continue their traditional nomadic lifestyle in the rainforest[11][12].

Indigenous Peoples in Sarawak, like most other Indigenes around the world, maintain a profound connection to their ancestral lands. The land is cherished not only for its resources that sustain life but also for its spiritual, social, cultural, and cross-generational significance. The history of inhabiting these lands shapes their lived experiences, with individuals and communities drawing a substantial part of their cultural identity from a strong bond to particular lands, landscapes, and places[13].

Despite a significant presence in Sarawak, many Indigenous groups are small in number and have limited political influence. The diversity within their ethnicities and religions, coupled with sparse populations, and remote locations, undermines their collective political power[13]. Although the Indigenous communities have managed their forests and rivers for countless generations, most of them do not have legal rights to the land that they depend on for their lives and livelihoods. This allows the government to lease their lands to timber and plantation companies, which frequently displace communities for profit, without sharing benefits. The high cost and lengthy process of securing legal land rights often pose insurmountable obstacles for these communities[14]. The injustice of native land customary right is an ongoing fight, as Lulu Belugu, an Indigenous Dayak leader once stated:

“Development does not mean stealing our land, our rights, our culture and our future. This is not development, but theft”[15].

Penan and Kelabit Indigenous Peoples

Penan People

Demographics and Settlement Area

The Penan elder woman with a kid, living in Kampung Bahagia, Long Napir, Sarawak, Malaysia

The Penan, part of the Dayak group in Sarawak, also reside in Brunei and Kalimantan[16]. As of 2010, the Sarawak Penan population was estimated at 16,281[17][18]. They are divided into two main groups: the East Penan and the West Penan, culturally distinct and separated geographically by the Baram River. The East Penan inhabit areas around Miri, Baram, Limbang, and Tutoh regions, while the West Penan are found in the Belaga district[19]. Out of around 70 Penan groups, only about 300 individuals live a completely nomadic life, with some of the last nomadic groups located in Gunung Mulu National Park in Sarawak[16].

Lifestyle

A Penan woman lives in Kampung Bahagia, Sarawak started a handicraft business for extra incomes

The Penan, traditionally a nomadic forest ethnic group, have historically relied on the forest for survival, including food, shelter, and medicine[16]. The exact year Penan first cultivated food crops is not certain. The Penan Kebulu and Penan Suan are estimated to have settled in the 1820s, and the Penan Saoh in the 1850s[19].  However, before the 1950s, the Penan were predominantly nomadic[20], but since then, successive programmes by the state government and Christian missionaries, and also the massive industrial-scale logging which destroyed the primary forests they rely on, have led to their settlement in longhouse-based villages similar to those of Sarawak's other Indigenous groups[21].

By 2010, 77% of the Penan had permanent settlements, 20% were semi-nomadic, and 3% remained nomads[22][23]. The settled Penan live in durable houses and mainly practice swidden agriculture. Semi-nomadic Penan, while also engaging in agriculture, rely significantly on hunting and gathering. Nomadic Penan roam the jungle for food and other supplies; usually settle in a particular place for several days or longer until their resources are exhausted[24]. The nomadic Penan rely on sago starch extracted from wild sago palms as a carbohydrate source[25].

Adaptation and Response to Logging

Not all Penan oppose logging; some have accepted it, with differences in response observed between the Eastern and Western groups. The Eastern Penan have actively resisted logging, erecting blockades due to its impact on their lifestyle. Conversely, the Western Penan initially resisted but later showed a willingness to negotiate with logging companies, often seeking material compensation[19].

Kelabit People

Kelabit People's residential area in Long Napir lays within the Sungai Medihit Watershed, Sarawak

Demographics and Settlement Area

The Kelabit, an indigenous Dayak group, predominantly reside in the highlands of Sarawak, with a minority in Brunei. They inhabit the remote Kelabit Highlands, located at the extremities of the Baram and Limbang rivers in northern Sarawak[26]. As of 2013, their population was approximately 6,600, making them one of Sarawak's smallest ethnic groups[27]. In the past two decades, many Kelabit have migrated to urban areas, leaving only about 1,200 in their ancestral highlands[28].

Lifestyle

Kelabit children from Long Napir, Sarawak

Kelabit villages typically feature a single longhouse, sometimes extending up to 75 meters, where the entire community resides without internal room partitions[29]. Predominantly agriculturalists, the Kelabits are known for growing wet rice, and slash and burn hill farming for subsistence[30]. They grow various crops like maize, tapioca, pineapple, pumpkin, cucumber, beans, coffee, lemongrass, taro, and fruits like passion fruit and strawberry. Livestock development is limited, as meat was traditionally used only for sacrifices, and even now, few animals are slaughtered for consumption. Dairy production and meat consumption have increased slightly over time[31]. The Kelabits also gather resources from the forest, including wild fruits and vegetables, and engage in hunting, fishing, and significant salt extraction, which they trade for other necessities[25].

The Kelabits have been deeply connected to their landscape for centuries. Despite many relocating to urban areas, they have not forsaken their ancestral lands[32]. This sentiment is echoed by Pun Do’ Udeng, a Kelabit Elder from Long Napir, who stated at the end of a mapping expedition, "I want to assert here that this place, this land belongs to no one else. Even though some of us have moved, our hearts, still beating in our bodies, remain attached to this place, to this ancestral domain. We have not abandoned all these lands"[33]. The purpose of the mapping expedition was to document the Kelabits' migratory routes, burial grounds, old village sites, hunting and fishing camps, and other cultural landmarks[33].

Post-World War II, Christian missionaries from the Borneo Evangelical Mission visited the Kelabit, leading to widespread conversion to Christianity. This shift, occurring mainly in the 1940s, resulted in the abandonment of many traditional practices, such as erecting megaliths and digging ditches to honor notable individuals. The Kelabit's transition to Christianity marked a significant cultural change in their community[34].

Tenure arrangements

Native Customary Rights (NCR) in Sarawak

Pre-Colonial Period

Native Customary Rights (NCR), known locally as the adat system, has existed even long before the Sultanate of Brunei and it has been used as the basis of traditional law-making and land tenure systems in Sarawak[35]. Each Indigenous group in Sarawak has its own adat, comprising unwritten customary laws transmitted orally across generations, governing daily life, land tenure, social norms, and conflict resolution within communities[12]. The traditional ownership of NCR land is passed down from generation to generation, and the understanding of the land-use practices is deeply rooted in indigenous customs and beliefs. However, such informal land acquisition and the intergenerational transfer of ownership are typically based on oral records within communities[12].

The Indigenous communities in Sarawak categorize their land tenure into three distinct types[12]:

  • Pemakai Menoa: This term encompasses the entire territorial domain, including rivers, longhouse sites, and cemeteries. The boundaries of Pemakai Menoa are determined by natural landscape features such as mountains, ridges, and rivers, as well as specific markers like certain trees and plants.
  • Pulau Galau: This refers to a communal primary forest reserve, a collectively managed and conserved area.
  • Temuda: This category describes land that has been cleared and cultivated for agricultural purposes.

These land tenure concepts have been traditionally upheld for centuries, maintaining their significance even under foreign governance, such as that of the Brooke family[36].

Brooke Era (1841-1946)

Sarawak's governance history has directly affected the Indigenous People's lives especially in terms of their rights to the lands and forests that they rely on[35]. The NCR have evolved over more than one and half centuries since the Brooke regime in 1841[35].The Brookes' policy defined and categorized the land tenure systems into two: one based on the native customary law or adat, and the other was a codified land system which featured in the earliest Land Orders of 1920[37]. The land tenure system based on the adat was created to preserve the traditional land use and farming systems of the natives[37]. Adat regulated natives' affairs through a blend of beliefs, norms, and practices, encompassing land ownership, sharing, inheritance, and rights transfer[38]. The codified system legally recognized private land ownership and promoted agricultural commercialization[37]. However, the Brookes never translated the native customary law into the formal land law[39].

British Colonial Period (1946-1963)

Post-World War II, Sarawak became a British Crown Colony. Several colonial legislations were adopted and subsequently modified[40] , including the Land (Classification) Ordinance 1948, which was a significant piece of legislation in the history of land management and administration in Sarawak. This ordinance played a crucial role in categorizing and defining land types within the state, which had implications for land use, ownership, and development[37]. The land types were classified in the following categories: a) Mixed Zone Land (land which may be held by any citizen without restriction); b) Native Area Land (land with a registered document of title but to be held by natives only); c) Native Communal Reserve (declared by the Order of the Governor in Council for use by any native community, regulated by the customary law of the community); d) Reserved Land (reserved for public purposes); e) Interior Area Land (land that does not fall within the Mixed Zone); and f) Native Customary Land (land in which customary rights, whether communal or otherwise, have been created). This classification was essential for determining the usage, rights, and restrictions associated with different land types, and it influenced how indigenous land rights were recognized and managed[40].

The new system of classifying land ownership was later laid out in the 1958 Land Code. The enactment of 1958 Land Code replaced other land related regulations, including the Land Ordinance 1948, Land Settlement Ordinance 1948, Land (Classification) Ordinance 1948, Dealings in Land (Validation) Ordinance 1952 and the rules made thereunder [41]. The 1958 Land Code has a similarity with the Brookes’ policy in allowing the co-existence of both the codified land rights and customary land tenure[37]. This Code acknowledged Indigenous Peoples' NCR to land, enabling them to claim legal titles. Yet, it only recognized NCRs established before 1958, despite their long-standing practice. During the colonial rule, there was a substantial shift in the administrative system in Sarawak. The primary focus of colonial policy was on economic transformation, achieved through exploiting the territory's natural resources, including minerals, agriculture, and forests[42]. Throughout this period, the Indigenous Peoples received minimal financial assistance, and there was no significant intention to revolutionize the natives' territories[42].

Post-Malaysia Formation (1963-Present)

Sarawak became part of Malaysia in 1963. Until today, the Land Code of 1958 remains Sarawak's primary land law. However, the NCR is primarily confined to community-level operations and have limited functionality within the current legal framework. The adat system, especially among the Dayak community, continues to play an informal role in regulating social relations within these communities[38]. Despite historical NCR practices, natives struggle to reclaim forest lands due to the 1958 legislation cutoff. While the local communities can administer customary rules, they lack formal land ownership rights[37]. This situation illustrates that NCR do not fully secure native land rights under the existing legal constraints. Only a small portion of NCR lands have been formally registered[43]. The 2000 Land Code Amendment Bill enabled the government to acquire large unregistered fallow lands from communities for developing extensive oil palm plantations[37]. Therefore, the current laws, including the Land Code and its amendments, are seen as disadvantageous to NCR[44].

The acquisition of the NCR by the natives

The Land Code 1958 specified the acquisition of the NCR by the natives. Section 5 of the Land Code 1958 makes provision for claims for NCR[45]. The two important subsections (1) and (2) states: "5 (1) As from the 1st Day of January, 1958, native customary rights may be created in accordance with the native customary law of the community or communities concerned by any of the methods specified in subsection (2), if a permit is obtained under section 10, upon interior Area Land. Save as aforesaid, but without prejudice to the provisions hereinafter contained in respect of Native Communal Reserves and rights of way, no recognition shall be given to any native customary rights over any land in Sarawak created after the 1st day of January, 1958, and if the land is State land any person in occupation thereof shall be deemed to be in unlawful occupation of State land and section 209 shall apply thereto"[45].

Section 5(2) then provides the methods by which the NCR may be acquired[45]:

(a)       the felling of virgin jungle and the occupation of the land thereby created;

(b)       the planting of land with fruit trees;

(c)        the occupation or cultivation of land;

(d)       the use of land for a burial ground or shrine;

(e)       the use of land of any class for rights of way; or

(f)        any other lawful method.

On which class of land can the NCR subsist?[45]
Land categories Can NCR subsist here?
Mixed Zone Land No.
Native Area Land Yes. Sometimes located within native customary territories that are in close proximity to relatively urbanised areas.
Native Communal Reserve Yes. The state tends to concede NCR only on land it deems has been under cultivation prior to 1958. This does not generally extend to forested areas.
Government Reserved Land No.
Interior Area Land Yes. May still be under legitimate NCR claims, as long as no extinguishment notice in clear language has ever been effected.

It should be noted that the Land Code 1958 places the burden of proving the existence of NCR over land on the native landowners, as stipulated in subsection 5(7). This means that NCR land claimants must demonstrate that their communities were on the land before January 1, 1958, exercising their adat to clear forests, cultivate, live on, and continually occupy the lands according to adat up to the present day. Therefore, communities are required to present evidence, both orally and through physical and documentary means, to persuade the courts that they hold rights over the lands. In essence, if communities can prove that any of the aforementioned methods were practiced before January 1, 1958, they can establish their NCR over the specified lands[46]. If Indigenous communities occupancy started after 1958, the native people would not be able to claim any rights according to the Code[47].

The Land Code of 1958 has undergone several amendments, primarily aimed at diminishing or extinguishing NCR to land[47]. The 2000 amendments, in particular, have proven detrimental in extinguishing NCR rights and have increased the vulnerabilities of the communities. First, the term "acquired" was replaced with "created," which places a significant burden on NCR landowners to establish ownership of lands where they exercise NCR. Second, the removal of Section 5(2)(f) - "any other lawful method" - not only restricts but also fails to acknowledge the methods of legally acquiring NCR Lands according to native customs and traditions, such as the adat or customary law of the concerned communities[46].

Timber harvesting and trading

The timber harvesting driven by political economy

The loss of primary forests in Sarawak Malaysia between the 1960s and 2010 (Source: The Sarawak Geoportal)

After joining Malaysia as a member state in 1963, Sarawak's forests became critical state-controlled resources[48]. The allocation of forest land and timber concessions became closely intertwined with state politics, heavily influencing the state’s revenue. As a result, the distribution of timber concessions became part of the political process[42]. The utilization of forest resources predominantly followed a private enterprise model, benefiting select individuals. Legislative changes in the 1970s and 1980s, including amendments to the Land Code and the Forest Ordinance, were tailored to favor the timber industry, often at the expense of indigenous communities' land rights and traditional forest resource use[42]. Research indicates a marked reduction in communal forests, from 303 square kilometers in 1968 to just 53 square kilometers in 1987, as the state focused on maximizing forest resource utilization. Beginning in the 1980s, Sarawak emerged as a major timber exporter. This emphasis on timber as a revenue source led to rapid deforestation, with logging practices frequently overlooking social and environmental impacts[42].

Sarawak, historically rich in forests, has suffered from high rates of deforestation in recent decades[49]. As of 2018, forests still cover 7.7 million hectares, or 62% of Sarawak's total land area[50]. However, the primary forests have been significantly depleted, and the proportion of intact primary forests remains low. Analysis by Global Forest Watch reveals that from 2002 to 2022, Sarawak lost 1.67 million hectares of humid primary forest, constituting 54% of its total tree cover loss during that period. The total area of humid primary forest in Sarawak decreased by 22% in these two decades[51]. The Sarawak Geoportal has produced maps showing the changes in forest cover and the decline of primary forests from the 1960s to 2010. These maps illustrate that while the proportion of primary forests was high in the 1960s, most were transformed into secondary forests or non-forest areas by 2010[52].

Primary forest loss in Sarawak, Malaysia between 2002 and 2022 (Source: Global Forest Watcher)

Additional research indicates that only 20.9 percent of Sarawak's land area consisted of intact forest within protected areas in 2009[53]. Approximately 37 percent of Sarawak's land surface was classified as degraded, including both normally degraded and severely degraded forests. Severely degraded forests, which have been logged between two to seven times, constituted 15 percent of the land area. Within these severely degraded forests, 77 percent had undergone two logging cycles, 19 percent were logged three times, and the remaining 3 percent faced four or more logging instances[53]. Additionally, plantation areas accounted for 21 percent of the land in Sarawak[53].

The timber harvesting concessions

In Sarawak, there are two main types of timber companies: state-owned and privately-owned. The state-owned logging companies, operate under the Sarawak Timber Industry Development Corporation (STIDC), which collaborates with private companies as subsidiaries. The majority of shares in these subsidiaries are owned by the state[24]. STIDC's role encompasses planning, coordination, and development of Sarawak's timber industries, focusing on optimal and efficient utilization of timber resources[54]. This includes encouraging downstream processing and product diversification. The Malaysian government, through STIDC, seeks to economically capitalize on Sarawak's forest resources in a sustainable manner[24].

Animation of tree cover loss over time within Sarawak logging concessions (Source: Global Forest Watcher)

However, despite its ostensibly good intentions, the Malaysian government has been implicated in the extensive deforestation of Sarawak[24]. It has granted logging concessions to some of the major private timber companies, namely: Samling Global, Rimbunan Hijau, the WTK Group, the Ta Ann Group, the KTS Group, and the Shin Yang Group[55]. These six companies, controlling at least 4.5 million hectares of timber concessions and 90% of the logging license area up until 2006, have been involved in indiscriminate logging[24]. Faeh notes the close ties between timber tycoons in Sarawak and key politicians, including local elites, who prioritize economic gain over environmental and human welfare. Selvadurai and others observe that the Sarawak state government rationalizes its logging activities as a step towards palm oil plantation development[54].

Accessing official maps and data of logging, oil palm, and wood fiber concessions in Sarawak is challenging; the government does not release this data in a publicly accessible format, leading to a lack of transparency[56]. According to Global Forest Watch's compiled and published maps of industrial logging, oil palm, and planted forest concessions, these cover over half of Sarawak's territory in 2015. This often includes overlap with intact forests, which are being exploited and degraded at alarming rates. The maps reveal that timber license concessions alone span 6,542,852 hectares, accounting for 53 percent of Sarawak’s total land area. The data also shows where logging concessions intersect with the country's remaining intact forests[56].

Impacts on Indigenous Peoples

Oil palm plantation in Sarawak

Sarawak's Indigenous groups have been the primary victims of extensive logging, facing significant environmental and social repercussions[57]. Historically, despite practicing swidden farming for centuries, these groups maintained the land in a largely undisturbed state until the 1960s[58][59]. However, the advent of large-scale, mechanized logging led to a drastic reduction in primary forests and ongoing rapid deforestation[58]. This process has resulted in biodiversity loss, soil erosion, the extinction of palm sago, river contamination, and the loss of ancestral lands and customary rights for many Indigenous Peoples[59]. Furthermore, the establishment of oil palm and other industrial tree plantations poses additional threats to their customary land rights[24].

These changes have endangered traditional lifestyles and caused cultural and spiritual losses among Sarawak's Indigenous communities[58]. The Penan, traditionally a nomadic group, have been particularly hard-hit as logging depletes the resources vital for their subsistence and trade[19]. The full impact of logging and other economic development activities on the Penan people, is captured more fully in Christopher Joseph Fleming Skinner’s work titled “The Varying Treatment of Selected Human Rights Issues via Internet Media in Sarawak, East Malaysia”[60]. Skinner writes:

"The most common complaint of the Penan people is that sporadic timber extraction has uprooted much of the jungle’s sago palms, which is their traditional staple food. Logging has destroyed many fruit bearing trees, as well as those from which the Penan extract blow dart poison, which they use for hunting. Other complaints of the Penan people are that the sound of industrial activity scares off game, while the number of those remaining has been depleted because the fallen trees cannot provide forage for them. As well, the loggers often hunt with shotguns. River siltation has killed much of the fish that people depend on, and the lack of clean water makes it difficult for people to process sago flour. The destruction of rattan, from which many goods and crafts are made, makes it increasingly difficult for the Penan to participate in a cash economy. In addition to the loss of items needed for their subsistence, the Penan are deeply affected by the obliteration of their gravesites, which are almost always located on the same mountain ridges where logging roads are constructed."

A report highlights that all the six major timber companies are involved in logging within traditional Indigenous settlements, where NCR are often disregarded. Logging not only impacts the environment through soil erosion, siltation, and pollution, but also leads to marginalization, resource depletion, and police brutality against local communities[57].

Indigenous groups have been engaged in a decades-long struggle against logging companies in Sarawak[23]. Despite blockades, protests, and legal challenges, efforts to protect their lands have largely been unsuccessful, often met with crackdowns, sometimes violent, including state police intervention and the destruction of homes[57]. Indigenous communities attribute the current situation to both the logging companies and the government, holding them accountable for the ongoing challenges and losses[57].

Conflicts with logging companies

Actions against massive logging

Penan Blockade, Malaysia, 2008 (Source: Friends of the Earth International)

After decades of exploitation of forest resources on their ancestral lands by timber companies, the Penan People, along with other Indigenous groups like the Kelabit, initiated actions against massive logging in 1987[61]. Initially, the Penan lodged complaints with the Malaysian government through the help and guidance of the NGO Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM), but these efforts were in vain[23]. The government's apparent indifference led the Penan to escalate their actions in 1987, erecting 25 blockades across logging roads in the Baram and Limbang Districts of Sarawak[62]. Despite this, the Malaysian government declared such blockades illegal and punishable by a two-year imprisonment without trial and a fine of MYR6,000[24]. Between 1987 and 1994, 478 individuals from various Dayak groups were arrested or imprisoned[24].

In response, Penan leader, along with leaders of other ethnic groups, drafted a resolution demanding national communal land rights and brought it in Kuala Lumpur to express their sentiments to the Malaysian government. Without any government response, the Penan erected blockades again in 1988 on logging roads again that cut through their customary lands. This finally prompted some attention from the government[58].

In 1990, the Sarawak State Government formed the Sarawak Penan Affairs Committee to assist the Penan, with the official purpose to facilitate government assistance towards the needs of the Penan, to address any problems raised by the Penan, and to implement any development projects intended for the Penan[62].

From 1990 to 1995, the Penan People took a wait-and-see attitude toward development projects and assistance promised by the Malaysian government. However, after five years of fruitless waiting for government action, the Penan erected new blockades in 1996 on roads belonging to Rimbunan Hijau[24]. Despite several arrests by the government, they continued their efforts in 1997, demanding recognition of their traditional land rights. An agreement was eventually reached after discussion with the primary logging company in their area, that set aside a watershed protection area not to be disturbed by logging and granted the community compensation for harvesting their forest in other areas. However, this agreement turned out to be another broken promise[24]. Logging continued within or even beyond the boundaries of the protected areas and the logging company provided extremely low estimates of their harvest which would then be used as a basis for compensation calculations[24].

From 2000 to 2001, the Penan erected more blockades in many parts of Sarawak in lands where they had claimed customary rights. Ajang Kiew, leader of the Sarawak Penan Association, emphasized that silence would result in further loss of their forests. Despite limited government attention, the Penan continued their struggle for land rights recognition[24]. The most recent action was taken in September 2021, the Penan set up roadblocks in Upper and Middle Baram regions to stop Samling, a timber company, from logging on their ancestral land without their consent. The blockades were a response to Samling's illegal encroachment and inaction by authorities[63]. Following the Long Ajeng blockade, 12 community leaders from around Sarawak sent a joint letter to Chief Minister Abang Johari Tun Openg, the equivalent of the state governor. They called on the government to intervene and stop Samling from logging the last primeval forests in the Upper Baram region, which is designated as a protected area. However, the state government has been slow to respond[63].

As dispossession due to logging, oil palm plantations, and dam construction continues, the Malaysian government's sincerity in addressing the Penan's land rights issues remains questionable. Government interventions, meant to facilitate dialogue between the Penan and logging corporations, are now seen as mere appeasement, offering false promises to the Penan[24].

Government responses

The Sarawak government responded to logging blockades and protests by amending existing forest laws and introducing new ones. In 1987, it amended the Forest Ordinance of 1958, criminalizing the obstruction of traffic along logging roads and allowing forestry officials to support logging concessionaires' agents to dismantle barriers. The ordinance was amended again in 1993, authorizing the arrest of anyone near a barrier who couldn't prove non-involvement in its erection. A further amendment in 2001 exacerbated the erosion of Indigenous rights by making it illegal to remove forest products from state and native customary lands without a permit. These amendments have led to numerous arrests, occasional violence, and several injuries and deaths[13].

In response to a High Court decision allowing a community-prepared map as evidence for reclaiming the NCR land rights of Indigenous People, the Sarawak government introduced the Land Surveyors Bill in 2001. This bill criminalizes map or plan preparation by unlicensed surveyors and mandates that cadastral land surveys or plans need to receive approval from the director general of lands and surveys[13].

Malaysia has used repressive laws to suppress Indigenous activism. The Official Secrets Act of 1972 was invoked to limit public access to information about the Bakun Dam project; the Internal Security Act of 1960 was used to place Kayan anti-logging activist Harrison Ngau Laing under house arrest for two years; and Anderson Mutang Urud, another Sarawak Indigenous activist, was arrested under the Societies Act of 1966 for alleged involvement in an illegal society[13]. Furthermore, the Sarawak government, which has separate state powers to control immigration under the federal constitution, has restricted entry into the state for anti-logging and indigenous rights campaigners, including Colin Nicholas, coordinator of the Center for Orang Asli Concerns, and Cynthia Gabriel, director of the NGO Voice of the Malaysian People[13].

As dispossession due to logging, oil palm plantations, and dam construction continues, the Malaysian government's sincerity in addressing the Penan and other Indigenous Peoples' land rights issues remains questionable. Government interventions, meant to facilitate dialogue between the Indigenous Peoples and logging corporations, are now seen as mere appeasement, offering false promises[13][63].

References

  1. ↑ "My Sarawak – Background". Mysarawak’s Travelogue. 12 December 2007. Retrieved 16 December 2023.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 "The geography of Sarawak". The Official Portal of the Sarawak Government. Retrieved 8 December 2023.
  3. ↑ "Sarawak State, Malaysia". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 6 December 2023.
  4. ↑ "Sarawak facts & worksheets". Kidskonnect. Retrieved 8 December 2023.
  5. ↑ "About Sarawak". Official Website for State Planning Unit of Sarawak. Retrieved 8 December 2023.
  6. ↑ "Types and categories of Sarawak's forests". The official website of Sarawak Forest Department. Retrieved 8 December 2023.
  7. ↑ "Sarawak population". Sarawak Government. Retrieved 10 December 2023.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 "The Indigenous world 2021: Malaysia". International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs. Retrieved 10 December 2023.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Minority Rights Group International, World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - Malaysia : Indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities in Sarawak, January 2018, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/49749ce83a.html [Accessed on 16 December 2023]
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 "Indigenous Peoples and ethnic minorities in Sarawak". Minority Right Group International. Retrieved Retrived on December 10th, 2023. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  11. ↑ "Logging and oil palm destroying tribe's forest home". Survival. Retrieved 16 December 2023.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 Jalli, N., & Chin, J. (2023). Native customary rights land titles and thwarting deforestation: Digital acts of resistance among Sarawak’s Indigenous Peoples. In Loh, B., & Chin, J. (eds) New media in the margins: Lived realities and experiences from the Malaysian peripheries (pp. 17–37). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7141-9_2 [Accessed on 10 December 2023]
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 Aiken, S. R., & Leigh, C. H. (2011). In the way of development: Indigenous land-rights issues in Malaysia*. Geographical Review, 101(4), 471–496. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1931-0846.2011.00113.X [Accessed on 8 December 2023]
  14. ↑ "Land rights in Sarawak". The Borneo Project. Retrieved 10 December 2023.. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  15. ↑ Elizabeth, Weinlein (2017). "Indigenous People, development and environmental justice: Narratives of the Dayak People of Sarawak, Malaysia". EnviroLab Asia. Vol. 1: Iss. 1, Article 6.
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 "Penan - Facts and details". Facts and Details. Retrieved 11 December 2023.
  17. ↑ Utap, M. S., & Kiyu, A. (2017). "Active case detection of leprosy among indigenous people in Sarawak, East Malaysia". Leprosy Review. Vol. 88, Issue 4.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  18. ↑ Novel Lyndon, A. C. Er, Sivapalan S., Hasnah Ali, Rosniza A. C. R., Azima A. M., Junaidi A. B., Fuad M. J., Mohd Yusoff Hussein, A. R. Mohd Helmi (October 11, 2013). "The world-view of Penan community on quality of life". Asian Social Science. Vol. 9, No. 14: pp. 98-105 – via Canadian Center of Science and Education.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: extra text (link)
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 Langub, J. (2020). The Penan of Jelalong River, Sarawak: A narrative of migration and adaptation. Advances in Asian Human-Environmental Research, 123–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7513-2_7 [Accessed on 11 December 2023]
  20. ↑ "The Penan People". Kucing Berjanggut. Retrieved 16 December 2023.
  21. ↑ Hosen N, Nakamura H, Hamzah A. (2020). Adaptation to climate change: Does traditional ecological knowledge hold the key? Sustainability.12(2):676. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020676 [Accessed on 13 December 2023]
  22. ↑ Laeng, Jenifer (7 December 2021). "Issue of statelessness still unresolved". The Sun. Retrieved 16 December 2023.
  23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 23.2 Kershaw, R. (2011). Against odds: A thirty-year struggle to save the forests of Sarawak. Asian Affairs, 42(3), 430–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/03068374.2011.605605 [Accessed on 12 December 2023]
  24. ↑ 24.00 24.01 24.02 24.03 24.04 24.05 24.06 24.07 24.08 24.09 24.10 24.11 24.12 Ocay, J. V. (2015). Ethics of refusal: Globalization and the Penan People’s struggle for recognition. Budhi: A Journal of Ideas and Culture, 19(2 & 3), 169. https://doi.org/10.13185/2251 [Accessed on 11 December 2023]
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 Janowski, M., Barton, H., & Jones, S. (2014). Culturing the rainforest: the Kelabit Highlands of Sarawak. In K. Morrisson, & S. Hecht (Eds.), The Social Lives of Forests: Past, Present, and Future of Woodland Resurgence [12] University of Chicago Press. https://abdn.elsevierpure.com/en/publications/culturing-the-rainforest-the-kelabit-highlands-of-sarawak [Accessed on 15 December 2023]
  26. ↑ Blanchet-Cohen, N., & Urud, M. (2017). Tana’ Bawang (homeland): Cultural safety and the Kelabit land struggle in Borneo. AlterNative, 13(3), 170–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1177180117714409 [Accessed on 14 December 2023]
  27. ↑ "Kelabit people". Wikipedia. Retrieved 16 December 2023.
  28. ↑ Amster, M. H. (2002). Changing borders and Identities in the Kelabit highlands: Anthropological reflections on growing up in a Kelabit Village near the international border. Borneo Research Bulletin, 33, 189+. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A113055236/AONE?u=googlescholar&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=cbb9ba2b [Accessed on 14 December 2023]
  29. ↑ Тишков В.А., ed. (1999). Народы и религии мира. Энциклопедия. М.: Большая Российская энциклопедия. p. 335. https://bigenc.ru/b/narody-i-religii-mira-48b2e1 [Accessed on 13 December 2023]
  30. ↑ Gin, O. K. (1998). For want of rice: Sarawak’s attempts at rice self-sufficiency during the period of Brooke rule, 1841-1941. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 29(1), 8–23. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20072006 [Accessed on 11 December 2023]
  31. ↑ Janowski, M. (1996). The Kelabit attitude to the Penan: Forever children. La Ricerca Folklorica, 34, 55–58. https://doi.org/10.2307/1480175 [Accessed on 11 December 2023]
  32. ↑ Bulan, R. (2003). Boundaries, territorial domains, and Kelabit customary practices: discovering the hidden landscape. Borneo Research Bulletin, 34, 18+. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A131041268/AONE?u=anon~b09a73da&sid=googleScholar&xid=5bae9e3a [Accessed on 14 December 2023]
  33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 Blanchet-Cohen, N., & Urud, M. (2017). Tana’ Bawang (homeland): cultural safety and the Kelabit land struggle in Borneo. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 13(3), 170-178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1177180117714409 [Accessed on 14 December 2023]
  34. ↑ Gani, N. (2021). Religious Conversion and the Cessation of Megalithic Practice in the Kelabit Highlands of Sarawak. Journal of Borneo-Kalimantan, 7(2), 40-59. Retrieved from https://publisher.unimas.my/ojs/index.php/BJK/article/view/4401 [Accessed on 14 December 2023]
  35. ↑ 35.0 35.1 35.2 Dimbab, N. (2005). Deconstruction and reconstruction of native customary land tenure in Sarawak. Center for Southeast Asian Studies. 43 (1). p. 47. ISSN 2186-7275. https://kyoto-seas.org/pdf/43/1/430103.pdf [Accessed on 14 December 2023]
  36. ↑ Cramb, R.A., & Sujang, P.S. (2011). ‘Shifting ground’: Renegotiating land rights and rural livelihoods in Sarawak, Malaysia. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 52, 136-147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8373.2011.01446.x [Accessed on 14 December 2023]
  37. ↑ 37.0 37.1 37.2 37.3 37.4 37.5 37.6 Fox, J.M., Fujita, Y., Ngidang, D., Peluso, N.L., Potter, L.M., Sakuntaladewi, N., Sturgeon, J.C., & Thomas, D.E. (2009). Policies, political-economy, and Swidden in Southeast Asia. Human Ecology, 37, 305 - 322. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10745-009-9240-7.pdf [Accessed on 14 December 2023]
  38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 Colchester, M. (2007). Land is life : land rights and oil palm development in Sarawak. https://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2010/08/sarawaklandislifenov07eng.pdf [Accessed on 14 December 2023]
  39. ↑ R.A. Cramb, I.R. Wills. (1990). The role of traditional institutions in rural development: Community-based land tenure and government land policy in Sarawak, Malaysia. World Development. Volume 18, Issue 3, 347-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(90)90122-E. [Accessed on 14 December 2023]
  40. ↑ 40.0 40.1 Bulan, R. (2006). Native customary land: The trust as a device for land development in Sarawak. In: Asia-Pacific Environment Monograph 1, State, Communities and Forests in Contempo- rary Borneo (Cooke FM, ed). ANU E Press, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p123701/pdf/ch0317.pdf [Accessed on 15 December 2023]
  41. ↑ Loh, BYH; Chin, James (2023). New Media in the Margins: Lived Realities and Experiences from the Malaysian Peripheries. University Of Tasmania. Book. https://hdl.handle.net/102.100.100/537898 [Accessed on 15 December 2023]
  42. ↑ 42.0 42.1 42.2 42.3 42.4 Kaur, A. (1998). A history of forestry in Sarawak. Modern Asian Studies, 32(1), 117–147. http://www.jstor.org/stable/312971 [Accessed on 15 December 2023]
  43. ↑ Ichikawa, M. Degradation and loss of forest land and land-use changes in Sarawak, East Malaysia: a study of native land use by the Iban. Ecol Res 22, 403–413 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-007-0365-0 [Accessed on 14 December 2023]
  44. ↑ Rachagan SS. 2009. Sustainable Forest Management in Malaysia - Guidelines for Conflict Resolution. Background document 5. RRI (Rights and Resources Initiative), ITTO (International Tropical Timber Organization). 2009. Tropical forest tenure as- sessment: trends, challenges and opportunities. Prepared for the International Conference on Forest Tenure, Governance and Enterprise: New Opportunities for Central and West Africa. Hotel Mont Febe, Yaounde, Cameroon. https://www.iges.or.jp/en/publication_documents/pub/researchreport/en/740/ir98-2-9.pdf. [Accessed on 15 December 2023]
  45. ↑ 45.0 45.1 45.2 45.3 "Indigenous customary land rights and the modern legal system". Sahabat Alarm Malaysia. 6 December 2021. Retrieved 12 December 2023.
  46. ↑ 46.0 46.1 Guidebook on reclaiming Sarawak NCR lands in courts - Practical information for communities on resorting to the court process (Civil Litigation) to reclaim Native Customary Rights (NCR) Lands. (2012). SACCESS. Available at: https://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2012/12/guidebook-reclaiming-sarawak-ncr-lands-courts1.pdf [Accessed on 16 December 2023]
  47. ↑ 47.0 47.1 Nelson, J., Muhammed, N., & Rashid, R. A. (2016). Native customary rights: Does it hold the future of Sarawak’s natives? Journal of Forest and Environmental Science. https://doi.org/10.7747/JFES.2016.32.1.82 [Accessed on 10 December 2023]
  48. ↑ Brosius, J. P. (1999). Green Dots, Pink Hearts: Displacing Politics from the Malaysian Rain Forest. American Anthropologist, 101(1), 36–57. http://www.jstor.org/stable/683340 [Accessed on 16 December 2023]
  49. ↑ Rachael Petersen, Samantha Gibbes and Mikaela Weisse (November 18, 2015). "New GFW maps show vast logging, oil palm and plantation concessions in Sarawak". Global Forest Watcher. Retrieved 15 December 2023.
  50. ↑ "Types and Categories of Sarawak's Forests". Official website of Sarawak Forest Department. Retrieved 15 December 2023.
  51. ↑ "Summary of forest statues in Sarawak, Malaysia". Global Forest Watcher. Retrieved 15 December 2023.
  52. ↑ "The Sarawak Geoportal". The Bruno Manser Fund. Retrieved 15 December 2023.
  53. ↑ 53.0 53.1 53.2 Bryan, J.E., Shearman, P.L., Asner, G.P., Knapp, D.E., Aoro, G., & Lokes, B. (2013). Extreme Differences in Forest Degradation in Borneo: Comparing Practices in Sarawak, Sabah, and Brunei. PLoS ONE, 8. https://10.1371/journal.pone.0069679 [Accessed on 10 December 2023]
  54. ↑ 54.0 54.1 Daniel Faeh, “Development of Global Timber Tycoons in Sarawak, East Malaysia: History and Company Profiles, A Report Produced for: Bruno Manser Fund, Switzerland, February 2011,” in Bruno Manser Fonds for the Peoples of the Rainforest, 18, http://www.bmf.ch/upload/berichte/ bmf_report_sarawak_timber_tycoons_1.pdf. [Accessed on 16 December 2023]
  55. ↑ "The Sarawak Timber Mafia's Global Menace". Sarawak Report. 25 Jun 2014. Retrieved 15 December 2023.
  56. ↑ 56.0 56.1 Rachael Petersen, Samantha Gibbes and Mikaela Weisse (November 18, 2015). "New GFW Maps Show Vast Logging, Oil Palm and Plantation Concessions in Sarawak". Global Forest Watcher. Retrieved 15 December 2023.
  57. ↑ 57.0 57.1 57.2 57.3 "Report: corruption in Sarawak led to widespread deforestation, violations of indigenous rights". Mongabay. 10 March 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2023.
  58. ↑ 58.0 58.1 58.2 58.3 Brosius, J. P. (1997). Prior transcripts, divergent paths: Resistance and acquiescence to logging in Sarawak, East Malaysia. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 39(3), 468–510. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417500020739. [Accessed on 16 December 2023]
  59. ↑ 59.0 59.1 Malone, P. (2014). The peaceful people: the Penan and their fight for the forest. Strategic Information and Research Development Centre. https://nla.gov.au/nla.cat-vn6612292[Accessed on 10 December 2023]
  60. ↑ Skinner C.J.F. (2010). The varying treatment of selected human rights issues via internet media in Sarawak, East Malaysia. Simon Fraser University. Available at: https://summit.sfu.ca/_flysystem/fedora/sfu_migrate/9972/etd5882.pdf [Accessed on 10 December 2023]
  61. ↑ Brosius, J. Peter (1997). "Endangered forest, endangered people: Environmentalist representations of Indigenous knowledge". Human Ecology. 25: 47–69 – via JSTOR.
  62. ↑ 62.0 62.1 Wira, Datuk (28 April 2010). "A History of the Penan Struggle in Sarawak, Malaysia". Blog - Penan In Sarawak. Retrieved 16 December 2023.
  63. ↑ 63.0 63.1 63.2 Donald, Rachel (14 October 2021). "Malaysia's Indigenous Penan block roads to stop logging in Borneo". Mongabay. Retrieved 16 December 2023.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Documentation:Open_Case_Studies/FRST522/2023/The_Penan_and_Kelabit_Indigenous_Peoples_of_Sarawak,_Malaysia:_an_analysis_of_their_engagement_and_conflict_with_logging_companies_on_their_traditional_unceded_territory&oldid=815830"