The Orang Asal of Malaysia:

Fighting Discrimination, Domination and Dispossession

COLIN NICHOLAS
Center for Orang Asli Concerns
Subang Jaya, Malaysia
www.coac.org.my

Talking points

Technical Meeting
on Ethnic Minorities and Indigenous Peoples Issues
Hanoi, Vietnam
22-23 September 2010

The indigenous peoples of Malaysia can be categorized according to the country’s three
regional groupings: the eleven states in Peninsular Malaysia and the two East Malaysian
states of Sabah and Sarawak. The former gained its independence from the British in
1957 while the latter two, also British colonies at one time, became independent when
they merged with the then Malaya in 1963 to form the new nation state, Malaysia.

However, Independence for the nation meant very little for the indigenous peoples of the
three regions. When the British left, they relegated the functions of government to the
dominant ethnic group, the Malays, who in coalition with their Chinese and Indian
partners, dictated national politics such that today's indigenous peoples often complain of
being colonized again.

1. The Position of Indigenous Peoples

in Malaysia

Peoples and numbers

The Orang Asal or indigenous peoples of Malaysia are not a homogenous group. In
Peninsular Malaysia, numbering 150,000 they are a very small minority - only 0.6 per
cent of the national population of 26.5 million. Culturally and linguistically, they are
distributed among 19 distinct ethnic groups, often collectively called Orang Asli (First
Peoples), and would include the Semai, Jakun, Temiar, Mah Meri and Orang Kanaq.

In Sabah, the indigenous communities are a majority in the state, making up 65 per cent
of the state population of 2.8 million (which includes about 1 million ‘non-Malaysian
citizens’). Nationally, however at 4.4 per cent of the national population, they remain a

1
minority. The 39 ethnic groups – including Kadazan, Dusun, Murut, Paitan and Bajau -
are collectively referred to as Anak Negeri or Natives of the State.

In Sarawak, the indigenous groups, now commonly referred to collectively as Dayaks and
Orang Ulu, account for 49 per cent of the state population of 2.3 million (which includes
about 100,000 ‘non-Malaysian citizens’). Nationally, they constitute only 4 per cent of
the national population. The Dayak groups include the Orang Ulu (literally 'people of the
headwaters') such as the Penan, Ukit, Kelabit and Kenyah.

Lifestyle and religion

The majority of the indigenous peoples of Malaysia live traditional lives. By this is meant
an existence which is closely linked to the land, be it the forest, rivers or the sea. A few
are hunter-gatherers (e.g. Penan, Semang/Negritos), others are fishermen (Orang Kuala,
Orang Seletar, Bajau) while most others are swiddeners. The majority of the Peninsular
Malaysia Orang Asli still practise their traditional religions, while those in Sabah and
Sarawak have increasingly begun to adopt Christianity and Islam as well. Even so,
tradition still runs deep in most indigenous communities.

This is not to suggest that the indigenous peoples of Malaysia are not part of the national
(or for that matter, the world) economy. Cash crops such as rubber, oil palm, pepper and
cocoa, have long been planted by the indigenous groups for an income. They also provide
an important source of labour, both skilled and unskilled, for industry. A few are
professionals and semi-professionals in the private and government sector. And in Sabah
and Sarawak, the indigenous communities are active in politics, with the present state
government in Sabah being dominated by native peoples.

Relations with the dominant society

Official statistics today recognize that the majority of the indigenous peoples of Malaysia
rank among the country's poor. The reasons for this are varied but they have to do with
the fact that the indigenous peoples have been pushed to the margins of society – in terms
of their access to their share of the national wealth and in terms of political power.

The best lands of the Orang Asli continue to be coveted by others, be they individuals,
private corporations or agencies of the state. Invariably, the legal apparatus of the state
favour the majority population, giving little or no security to Orang Asli lands.

For Sabah and Sarawak, the indigenous peoples lose out when the bulk of the state's
wealth is appropriated by the Federal Government or by selfish local, albeit indigenous,
politicians. In fact, the control of the state governments in these two Bornean states by
native elites has not helped to improve the situation. On the contrary, a disturbing trend
of late has been the increasing number of private corporations from the Peninsular being
given vast tracts land for agricultural expansion, invariably for the ‘green’ oil palm which

2
is being brandished about the environmentally-friendly source of bio-fuel. Never mind
that huge tracts of forest have to be cleared for this, and that most of these areas involve
the traditional lands of the Native peoples who claim NCR (Native Customary Rights)
over them.

Uneven development

Malaysia is often touted as a success story as far as development and the reduction of
poverty is concerned. In fact, the national poverty rate has been reduced to a remarkable
3.5 per cent! However, intra-statistics for the indigenous peoples show that the macro
figures do not reflect the situation on the ground.

And poverty rates are the highest in Sabah, where some 23 percent of households are
living below the national poverty line. The bulk of these persons are rural dwellers, and
among the poorest of the poor are those who live on the margins of the nation’s forests.

In Sarawak, among the bumiputra groups, the poverty rate of the Malays was 5.2 percent,
Iban 10.5 percent and other indigenous groups 6.8 percent while that for the Chinese was
1 percent. Data also shows that in Sarawak, 17 percent of the population never went to
school making Sarawak one of the least literate states in Malaysia.

In Peninsular Malaysia, the rate for Orang Asli poverty remains at a high 76.9 per cent.
That is, more than three-quarters of the 149,512 Orang Asli still live in poverty today. It
is also sad to note that more than a third of the Orang Asli community (35.2 per cent) fall
under the ‘hardcore poor’ category. This is 25 times the national average of 1.4 per cent
hardcore poor.

Other indicators also point to the poor quality of life that the Orang Asli experience. For
example, only 48.8 per cent of Orang Asli households had some form of piped water, either
indoors or outdoors, the others depending on rivers, streams and wells for their water needs.
The availability of toilet facilities as a basic amenity was lacking in 43.7 per cent of the
Orang Asli housing units, compared to only 3 per cent at the Peninsular Malaysia level. For
lighting their homes, 51.2 per cent of Orang Asli households depend on kerosene lamps or
pelita.

2. Discrimination is accepted in Malaysia

It is not surprising that Malaysia is not a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination
of Racism and Discrimination (CERD). This is because Malaysia practices
discrimination. It is so pervasive and so plain to the person in the street that it has become
internalized and accepted in the mindsets of Malaysians. But say this to an ‘enlightened'
and 'educated’ audience and you are likely to be warned of the Sedition Act or be called a
traitor, a racist, or even worse.

3
But the reality remains that Malaysia practices discrimination. And this is most clearly
attested by the fact that we have different categories and policies for Bumiputera and
non-Bumiputera Malaysians.

Saying so is not to make a value judgment on whether such a dichotomy of our citizenry
is right or wrong. Or whether positive discrimination, as in the practise of affirmative
action policies, is both good and necessary in our context. I personally feel that special
treatment for members of disadvantaged groups is justifiable – but only as long as the
discrimination and inequality persists. However, this is not the venue for a discussion on
the matter.

My aim here is to show how discrimination as practised in our country actually acts
against the interests of the other indigenous Bumiputeras. A simple test to demonstrate
this is to juxtapose the privileges and rights enjoyed by the Malay community as the
standard to assess those enjoyed by the Orang Asli and other indigenous communities in
Sabah and Sarawak, on the basis that all are Bumiputera communities.

For example, in the maintenance, development and regard for Orang Asli identity
(including their culture, language and religion), a clear gap is evident. In brief, Orang
Asli identity markers do not get the same protection and regard as those of the Malays.
For when you have, for example, an expressed policy to “integrate the Orang Asli with
the mainstream society”, or more specifically to “assimilate the Orang Asli into the
Malay sector of society” (JHEOA 1961, 1993), you cannot place the Orang Asli on the
same level as the dominant Bumiputera ethnic group to which it is supposed to assimilate
into.

Discrimination in 'protections'

Furthermore, with the expressed objective to convert all Orang Asli to Islam (JHEOA
1983), and the absence of credible state-sponsored actions to protect and promote Orang
Asli traditions, territories, and languages, you cannot justify the claim that all
Bumiputeras are treated equally. On the contrary, for the Malay Bumiputera, state
support for these are not only institutionalized and heavily sponsored but also regarded as
a given right, and often vehemently defended.

The disparity in protections also extents to more material aspects of Orang Asli concerns,
especially in the security of tenure of their traditional lands. Orang Asli reserves do not
enjoy the same legal tenurial security as does Malay reservation lands. (Try de-gazetting
Malay reservation land without the inhabitants’ consent and see what happens?)

On the other hand, Orang Asli gazetted reserves are habitually de-gazetted without even
the constitutional provisions being adhered to, or with the knowledge, let alone consent,
of the Orang Asli. Between 1990 and 2002, a total of 7,994.5 hectares of Orang Asli
reserves and approved lands were de-gazetted without consent or adequate notice – in

4
direct contravention of the government's Statement of Policy Regarding the
Administration of the Orang Asli (1961) and the UN's Declaration of the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples.

Individual states have also promised to give land titles to Orang Asli. Perak, for example,
promised to do so by 1990. Needless to say, this is yet another empty promise.
Nevertheless, even when such land titles are given, as in Pahang in more recent years,
this is on condition that they resettle to sites that routinely constitute about a quarter of
their original traditional land areas. And their ‘land titles’ (for an area of 4 to 6 acres per
household) are actually temporary occupational leases for 99 years.

Compare this to originally-landless Felda applicants who apply to be settlers and are
given land, in perpetuity, on plots that are 8 to 10 acres in size, the minimum acreage
deemed by the experts to be necessary to keep an agricultural household above the
poverty line. The Dayaks and Orang Ulu who were displaced by the Bakun Dam, if you
recall, only received 3 acres each – and had to fork our RM51,000.00 for their respective
units in their wooden longhouses. Why the discrimination?

3. Political Dominance is not in the hands of the Orang Asal

There are several reasons why Orang Asli and the native peoples of Sabah and Sarawak
(collectively called Orang Asal) are able to be discriminated against. But ultimately it
boils down to who stakes, and wields, political dominance today.

That the Malays have political dominance today cannot be disputed. And it is frequently
asserted that the Malay claim to political dominance is based on their indigenity – which
is asserted as a legitimate foundation for staking political dominance. This rationale
however does not extent to the Orang Asli – the ‘First’ or ‘Original’ Peoples of the
peninsula – and the Natives of Sabah and Sarawak.

While the Orang Asli can also stake their claim as the indigenes of this land, they
however do not enjoy the accompanying political clout that such indigenity should bring
(following the practice in Malaysia). That is to say, while they are accepted as Natives or
Indigenes, they are not recognized as the political masters of the land. That this is so can
be gleaned from the pronunciations of two of our former Prime Ministers:

Tunku Abdul Rahman, The Star (6 November 1986):

“There was no doubt that the Malays were the indigenous peoples of this land
because the original inhabitants did not have any form of civilisation compared
with the Malays… and instead lived like primitives in mountains and thick
jungle.”

Mahathir Mohamad, Malay Dilemma (1981: 73):

“The Malays are the original or indigenous people of Malaya and the only people

5
 who can claim Malaya as their one and only country…. the Orang Melayu or
Malays have always been the definitive people of the Malay Peninsula. The
aborigines were never accorded any such recognition nor did they claim such
recognition … Above all, at no time did they outnumber the Malays”.

So it appears that the criteria for political dominance – that is, the prerequisites for
controlling your life and those of others – are: a civilized society, numerical superiority,
and self-accordance and assertion of recognition.

Having now established numerical superiority, and having asserted and claimed
recognition as the indigenes of this country, it only remains for the Malays to ensure the
perpetuation of the myth that the Orang Asli and other native peoples are still the
uncivilized, anti-development, nomadic, isolated pagans in need of administrative
intervention.
It has to be mentioned however that the Orang Asli were never always a subjugated
people. During the turbulent formation of the Malay sultanates, Orang Laut help was
sought to prop up the sultanates in Malacca and Johor. Hang Tuah himself was said to be
of Orang Laut origin. In Negeri Sembilan, the position of the Biduanda tribes were
ensconced in the Adat Perpatih such that the Batins (Orang Asli chiefs) had more than a
mere ceremonial role in the institution of the ruling Undangs. And then of course, there is
the Legend of the White Semang which relates how the first Sultan of Perak took an
Orang Asli (‘Semang’) wife.

It is not within the scope of this paper to go into the ‘rise and fall’ of the Orang Asli in
early modern Malaysian history. Rather, for our purpose here, it should be noted that,
going both by the exhortations of our national leaders and in the realpolitik of today, the
Orang Asli (and it follows, the native peoples of Sabah and Sarawak) today are not
recognized as the indigene of this land.

Without Power and in Poverty

And without the attendant aspects that come along with the status of a people in power, it
is not surprising that the Orang Asal rate as among the most marginalised and
disadvantaged in Malaysian society today. For example, while the national poverty level
had dropped remarkably to 6.5 per cent in 2004, more than three-quarters (76.5 per cent)
of the Orang Asli still live below the poverty line. The other social indicators (health,
education, access to basic facilities, etc) all show that the Orang Asal rate far behind the
Malaysian mainstream (Nicholas 2000 & 2005; Nicholas & Baer, forthcoming).

The Orang Asal are at one extreme of the social spectrum; at the other being those who
are visible, those who expound, those who determine the playing fields, and those whose
presence dominate the landscape – i.e. the world of developers and researchers, of
decision-makers and intellectuals, and of politicians and entrepreneurs.

6
I should add, however, that despite the high level of poverty among the community, this
has not dented the rise in the number of Orang Asal businessmen who have bettered their
economic situation at the expense of the community, through contracts and projects in
Orang Asal areas, obtained on the “merit” of their good relations with the authorities and
on the strength of their Orang Asal identity. This is especially evident in the Orang Asli
context where these Orang Asli Baru – or to borrow the phrase of Brian Barry (2001: 21),
these ‘ethnocultural political entrepreneurs’ – use the ‘politics of difference’ to exploit its
potential for their own ends by mobilizing a constituency around a set of sectional
demands.

But the fact remains that the majority of the ordinary Orang Asal folk live on the margins
and are kept on the margins.

3. Side-stepping the UNDRIP

It can never be over-emphasised that Malaysia actually double-endorsed the United

Nations' Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). First when she was
a member of the Human Rights Council that approved the original draft in June 2006.
And then, on 13 September 2007, when it was successfully tabled in the UN General
Assembly. One would therefore think that Malaysia fully supported the thrust and intent
of the UNDRIP.

Having said this, it needs to be said that, with regard to the Orang Asli, the UNDRIP is
but a far cry from being implemented, whether in part, or in full in Malaysia.

Not only is the UNDRIP not internalized into the mindsets of the decision-makers and
legislators – a crucial prerequisite if its content and intent are to be realized in concrete
terms – but there was no announcement, media coverage or allusion to DRIP by anyone
in authority since the time it was adopted till today.

On the contrary, in the federal court appeal against a lower court’s decision to recognize
the land rights to the Orang Asli of Bukit Tampoi in Selangor (in the landmark Sagong
Tasi case), the senior federal counsel for the government has argued that sections 3 and 6
of the Civil Law Act should apply. Basically, what these sections say is that if there is a
local specific law that addresses the issue at hand, then the court should not resort to
drawing comfort from other authorities or jurisdictions (such as the Constitution,
common law, international customary law, or even international declarations). In this
particular case, the counsel argues, the local specific law is the Aboriginal Peoples Act.
And this law basically says the Orang Asli have no rights to their customary lands.

Clearly, therefore, the positive articles and clauses in the UNDRIP that protect the rights
of the Orang Asli have not been internalized into our judicial system let alone the officers
of the government which voted, twice over, for the declaration.

7
With similar impunity, the indigenous-positive elements in the UNDRIP is blatantly
shunted to the back while the holders of the powers of discrimination and domination
seek to direct and organise the lives of the Orang Asal through various policies,
programmes and plans that further marginalise the Orang Asal from recognising the
rights as enshrined in the UNDRIP, or even the Federal Constitution.

4. Policies and Projects for Dispossession

To be able to extract maximum profits and gain, the power structures that be seek to
dominate and control Orang Asal lives, livelihoods and lands. This they do through
various means – including determining policies for the Orang Asal (and so legitimize
their wrongdoing) and instituting programmes and projects that purportedly are for the
Orang Asal’s betterment but in reality further marginalize and dispossess them from their
lands.

New Orang Asli Land Policy

For example, in December 2009, the National Land Council formally approved the Dasar
Pemberimilikan Tanah Orang Asli (Policy to Give Land to Orang Asli). This is supposed
to be in response to the demands of the Orang Asli for their customary lands to be
recognised. But the policy as devised by the Federal Government best illustrates the true
nature and intention that goes behind the formulation of such policies.

According to the new policy, which is in the process of being turned into law, about
29,990 Orang Asli families are to get 2 to 6 acres of land (apart from their quarter acre
for their dwelling and orchard). About 50,000 hectares are to be given in such manner.
The catch is Orang Asli would no longer have rights to the 79,000 hectares that have
been applied for gazetting but not approved yet and to other areas that they authorities
have labelled as ‘roaming areas’. Also, with the new policy, Orang Asli would not be
able to take the government to court over compensation matters. Needless to say, the
Orang Asli do not agree with this policy and have made it very clear to the authorities.

Development Corridors

Despite all the plans and programmes that the Orang Asli were subjected to in the past,
their communities were largely able to withstand hardship and survive poverty largely
because, for the most part, they still had access to their “safety nets”—their customary
lands. Ironically, all these are now being severely threatened by a new development
agenda, with its parallel development programs, that is purportedly meant to reduce
hardship and eradicate poverty among the Orang Asli: the much publicized Development
Corridors launched in 2007.

8
These development corridors encompass medium-term economic master plans that aim to
transform marginal areas into developed economic regions by 2025. And while we are
told that they are designed to meet the specific needs of households including providing
income support and basic amenities with an emphasis on education, skills training and
income generating activities, there are major flaws in the conceptualization and
realization of the plans. Three of the five Development Corridors directly affect the
Orang Asli, the other two are in Sabah and Sarawak.

Corridor Areas covered Focus Industries Target Investment

under the corridor

East Coast Economic Kelantan, Terengganu,  Oil, Gas and Approx. USD 35 billion in
Region (ECER) Pahang and district of Petrochemical; investment for the next 12 years
Mersing in Johor  Tourism;
 Manufacturing;
 Agriculture; and
 Education

Iskandar Development Southern Johor  Healthcare; Approx. USD 15 billion by 2010

Region (IDR)  Logistics; (Reportedly attracted USD 7
billion by Feb 7, 2008)
 Tourism;
 Education;
 Creative industry; and
 Financial Advisory &
Consulting

Northern Corridor Perlis, Kedah, Penang  Agriculture; Approx. USD 55 billion

Economic Region and north of Perak
 Manufacturing;
(NCER)
 Tourism & Logistics;
 Infrastructure;
 Human Capital; and
 Environment

Sabah Development Sabah  Agriculture; Approx. USD 33 billion

Corridor (SDC)  Manufacturing;
 Services; and
 Tourism & Logistics

Sarawak Corridor of Sarawak  Oil-based industry; Approx. USD 155 billion

Renewable Energy  Aluminium;
(SCORE)
 Steel;
 Aquaculture;
 Marine Engineering;
 Glass;
 Tourism,
 Palm Oil;
 Timber-based;
 Livestock

9
Given the high cost of investment involved, it is clear that the development projects will
be given or carried out by huge corporations. Sime Darby, reportedly the world’s largest
oil palm plantation company, has also seen the ‘opportunity’ to further expand their
agricultural land base under the NCER for example—invariably at the expense of the
Orang Asli who are still regarded by the government as “tenants at will” squatting on
state land.

Mega development projects & Mono-crop plantations

One of the most common and most impacting activities to be foisted on the lives of the Orang Asli is
exogenous development, sometimes implemented for their direct benefit but most times a
consequence of the development needs of others.

And development agents are at the fore-front of this universal activity. These are the people who plan,
decide and implement policies and programmes supposedly meant to improve the lives of the Orang
Asli. Invariably, these projects are huge, require a lot of capital, and land – which often means the
lands of the Orang Asal as these frontier lands are now considered valuable economic resources that
can be obtained at a low cost or even a premium.

The most obvious example of such projects are mega dams, whether for hydroelectricity or for water.
The presentation will illustrate the impact of such projects on the Orang Asal.

The presentation will also highlight how the pursuit of the so-called ‘green’ biofuel – palm oil – has
been able to appropriate the customary lands of the Orang Asal mainly because the discrimination and
domination exercised by the powers-that-be, and those connected to them.

10